crazyfingers
Meow
No kidding. Only a libertarian ammosexual would consider that sensible gun control.
-
Features
Split on Gun Control from Planned Parenthood Attacked thread
- Thread starter untermensche
- Start date
No kidding. Only a libertarian ammosexual would consider that sensible gun control.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
No kidding. Only a libertarian ammosexual would consider that sensible gun control.
If you get to a priori say that your position is sensible, I get to a priori say that my position is sensible. If you don't like it, don't do it.
And yes, that position I quoted actually is sensible, aside from my a priori pronouncements.
In spite of what the extremist kooks at the Brady Campaign might have told you, there is no such thing as an "ammosexual". Why do the extremist kooks always talk about sex when the topic is firearms?
crazyfingers
Meow
"We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition."
This is not gun control at all. It's an ammosexual's wet dream.
This is not gun control at all. It's an ammosexual's wet dream.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
In spite of what the extremist kooks at the Brady Campaign might have told you, there is no such thing as an "ammosexual". Why do the extremist kooks always talk about sex when the topic is firearms?
crazyfingers
Meow
Funny how you assume so much. As I told you previously I don't care about the Brady Campaign and have never looked into them. If they are nuts or not I have never paid any attention. You are the one however that posted what was pointed out to you as two fraudulent posters you claimed were theirs but were frauds.
You post the LP's position on gun control claiming it's sensible controls but is actually no control at all. It's the ammosexual's wet dream.
I suggest you give it up.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
You haven't answered my question - why do the extremist kooks always compare firearms to sex?
And what are the Freudian implications of them wanting tight controls over sex, since they think it is sex?
And what are the Freudian implications of them wanting tight controls over sex, since they think it is sex?
Well, I've said what I favor many times: Gun licenses. You have to show that you're not a crazy and know the laws around guns and their safe handling. You also need to show reasonable proficiency in order to possess ammunition. (I separate the two because of gun collectors--if age takes away your ability to pass the proficiency test you shouldn't lose your collection. You just get no ammo to load into them--something a collector doesn't need anyway.)
No license is needed in a classroom situation and no license is needed under the direct observation of a licensed person. One-on-one only unless you're a licensed instructor in a teaching situation.
Any transfer of a firearm (the recipient taking it beyond direct observation) requires seeing their license--but you can always return a gun to the person you got it from without seeing their license. No license need be seen in cases where the person obviously is licensed (law enforcement, gunsmith in his business etc.) No license is needed when dealing with a packaged gun being transported by a common carrier. (You can box up your gun and drop it off at UPS without asking for a license, the UPS guy can give it to the recipient without seeing their license or even knowing it's a gun. You had better have seen their license before shipping, though.) This same rule applies to ammunition.
If you have a gun on your person but no license on your person you get busted. (Barring the emergency case--it's not a crime to pick up your gun to defend yourself, it's not a crime if you take the bad guy's gun. {Or the bad guy throws it at you and you catch it--there's a bit of security camera footage floating around on the web where the armed robber goes into the store and draws his gun--and is slippery-fingered, the gun goes flying and lands on the counter in front of the clerk who scoops it up and points it at the hastily-departing robber.})
On the flip side, suppressors become fully legal. There's simply no reason for the restrictions--that's pure Hollywood. Suppressors aren't about making a gun Hollywood-quiet, they are about reducing the noise below the threshold of hearing damage. A suppressed weapon is still very loud but not to the point of needing hearing protection.
Machine guns and large-bore guns are license endorsements. They still have the transfer paperwork but there's no approval involved. You show a machine-gun endorsed license and you can walk out with the machine gun as soon as the paperwork is filed.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,514
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Freudian -- adjective 1. longer than it is wide
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,853
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Jason has given us examples of why it is so hard to argue with a libertarian or an Austrian economist. Their entire philosophy is based on fantasies. In a fantasy anything is possible, any imagined behavior can be assigned to anyone, any imaginary operating mechanism in society can be assumed to be real.
For example, here gun control is bad because it is a racist policy, its intent by the always evil Democrats is to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Therefore we should have sensible gun control, which is no effective control on who can purchase guns or on the type of guns that they can buy. Criminals, the insane, children, all should be allowed to buy any type of firearm that they want, machine guns, long range sniper rifles, long range rapid fire anti-aircraft cannon, that the individual deems to be required for protection of their property because anything less is racist.
The original supposition is questionable, that the primary intent or even that a secondary consequence of gun control is racially motivated. A supposition supported here by two obviously fake posters that Jason believes are not fakes because of the need on his part to believe the fantasy.
And the cure for the fantasy problem of racist gun control is no gun control at all. Which fits with the libertarians' overall fantasy that there is no greater evil in society than government. That when people come together to form businesses to make a profit to satisfy their greed there is nothing but good that can happen but when same people come together to form a government to control observed bad behavior, nothing but evil can be the result*.
That total liberty combined with supply and demand setting prices, with hard money from either free banking or its total opposite, 100% reserve banking**, either with or without transcendental property**, in a free market with open borders and free trade guarantees the maximum amount of social justice and tranquility. All propositions that have repeatedly failed when put into practice***. According to the libertarians because they either weren't put into practice by real libertarians or that it is too advanced for non-libertarians and so-called libertarians to understand or that all of the propositions must be in place at the same time, that all of them are preconditions for all of the others. An impossible situation that no libertarian knows how to accomplish. Something of little concern to libertarians, mere details that obscure the beauty of the fantasy.
Basically the problem is that the libertarian philosophy isn't based on the world as it exists today or for that matter as it has ever existed. It is based on nothing more than how libertarians wished that the world worked and people behave.
* except to enforce contracts
** libertarians can't decide between the two
*** except for transcendental property
For example, here gun control is bad because it is a racist policy, its intent by the always evil Democrats is to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Therefore we should have sensible gun control, which is no effective control on who can purchase guns or on the type of guns that they can buy. Criminals, the insane, children, all should be allowed to buy any type of firearm that they want, machine guns, long range sniper rifles, long range rapid fire anti-aircraft cannon, that the individual deems to be required for protection of their property because anything less is racist.
The original supposition is questionable, that the primary intent or even that a secondary consequence of gun control is racially motivated. A supposition supported here by two obviously fake posters that Jason believes are not fakes because of the need on his part to believe the fantasy.
And the cure for the fantasy problem of racist gun control is no gun control at all. Which fits with the libertarians' overall fantasy that there is no greater evil in society than government. That when people come together to form businesses to make a profit to satisfy their greed there is nothing but good that can happen but when same people come together to form a government to control observed bad behavior, nothing but evil can be the result*.
That total liberty combined with supply and demand setting prices, with hard money from either free banking or its total opposite, 100% reserve banking**, either with or without transcendental property**, in a free market with open borders and free trade guarantees the maximum amount of social justice and tranquility. All propositions that have repeatedly failed when put into practice***. According to the libertarians because they either weren't put into practice by real libertarians or that it is too advanced for non-libertarians and so-called libertarians to understand or that all of the propositions must be in place at the same time, that all of them are preconditions for all of the others. An impossible situation that no libertarian knows how to accomplish. Something of little concern to libertarians, mere details that obscure the beauty of the fantasy.
Basically the problem is that the libertarian philosophy isn't based on the world as it exists today or for that matter as it has ever existed. It is based on nothing more than how libertarians wished that the world worked and people behave.
* except to enforce contracts
** libertarians can't decide between the two
*** except for transcendental property
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Actually, this is why it is impossible to discuss gun control with non-libertarians. Any extremist kooks who think firearms are genitalia cannot have a rational discussion. Firearms simply aren't genitalia, really. They are a a piece of metal manufactured in a factory.
I am willing to discuss this with someone who can tell the difference between a gun and a penis.
So I suggest sensible gun control proposals, and I am told many people in this thread disagree with sensible gun control. It's nice to know you think sensible gun control is a fantasy.
I am willing to discuss this with someone who can tell the difference between a gun and a penis.
So I suggest sensible gun control proposals, and I am told many people in this thread disagree with sensible gun control. It's nice to know you think sensible gun control is a fantasy.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The Senate, dominated by the GOP just voted down attempts to keep guns out of the hands of those who are on terrorist watch lists.
Yes, terrorist suspects need guns too! Wugga! Wugga! Wugga! go the Reublicans. And the NRA leaders dance in the streets.
Yes, terrorist suspects need guns too! Wugga! Wugga! Wugga! go the Reublicans. And the NRA leaders dance in the streets.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
There are 6 month old children on the list for life because their name resembles a name of someone who is suspected of terrorism. Not even accused, much less tried or convicted.
Don't hitch your wagon to the star of the watch list. I've had many discussions with Blogger Bob over at the TSA blog about the failings of the list.
I know that wacko extremists want to restrict penises, I mean guns, but do you really think it is appropriate to restrict them from people whose only crime is to have a similar name to a mere suspect?
Don't hitch your wagon to the star of the watch list. I've had many discussions with Blogger Bob over at the TSA blog about the failings of the list.
I know that wacko extremists want to restrict penises, I mean guns, but do you really think it is appropriate to restrict them from people whose only crime is to have a similar name to a mere suspect?