Your argument repeatedly returns to hardware, that there are attributes of hardware what you wish to prohibit but not "all guns".
It is time for you to define "assault weapon", since that is what you wish to prohibit.
It's not a machine gun or sub-machine gun, since that would be "assault rifle" and is already covered by law.
So what is it? Is it the black plastic you don't like?
Re:I think you're looking at the wrong thing
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
That is why we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
False. Didn't you read what I wrote? Erase the laws of prohibition and prosecute murder, assault, endangerment, whatever, regardless of the weapon used.
The "laws that are already on the books" have been on the books for 4 thousand years. Murder has been illegal the entire time, gun control had no effect on that.
I think you're equating banning assault weapons with banning all guns.
No, I'm extending your logic to its rational, reasonable conclusion. If I cannot be trusted with a machine gun, then I cannot be trusted with a.22 for exactly the same reasons.
That is why the 1934 NFA isn't the only gun control law. Once begun, the basic logic that people cannot be trusted with their own arms leads to only one conclusion: Disarmament.
This is why soldiers, whose job is to kill as many opposing soldiers as possible, carry assault weapons and not hunting rifles or Saturday-night specials.
Look again. Soldiers carry anything and everything. Military shotguns, for instance. The venerable 1911 military pistol had only 7 rounds, showing the absurdity of the assertion that only the military "needs" high capacity magazines. The "Liberator" was junk by any measure, yet worked very well indeed.
The ugly rifle ban certainly did infringe upon my right to choose my own defense, since I was unable to purchase such an ugly gun if that indeed was what I concluded would fit my needs best. Prohibitions on Nigger Town Saturday Night Specials mean poor people cannot afford legal arms for their defense. How many times must prohibition fail before you give up on it?
By taking it upon yourself to make that choice for others, you have made yourself morally liable for anyone who died because their choices were limited.
I'm sure we could find examples for just about any hardware. But that's not the point.
I agree with you, but I see that you're still arguing from emotion. You assert many things you don't want to see happen, without any support for the underlying concept that private ownership of machine guns makes your worries any more likely.
But if you were going to keep a weapon for self-defense, would you really choose an AK-47 to defend your dark house!? Of course not.
Here is one crux of the matter. Why do you get to choose what other people may or may not own? How can you know that an AK-47 isn't exactly the right weapon for self defense in some situation?
Are you willing to be prosecuted for murder when your prohibition costs lives?
If it were up to me, the US would pass a real assault weapons ban with real penalties like in DC if you are caught with an illegal weapon.
Yet DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Because you cannot go beyond your own emotional response and grasp reality, you would condemn the entire nation to such murder rates.
Where gun control is lower, crime rates are lower.
I may not be a gun expert, but I am not stupid, either.
Prove it. Support your tales of woe and fear with facts, if you have them.
If not, then move beyond your fear and embrace the benefits of Liberty. Free people are peaceful people, armed societies are polite societies. If you don't have the experience, go get it. Don't just mouth platitudes and repeat myths of woe.
Thank you, that at least explains the availability of said information.
If I were the judge at this point, actually a point long past, I would have required SCO to show the evidence of wrongdoing that they had in order to bring the case in the first place.
And then, when they produced nothing, throw the case out on its face right then and there. Period.
I don't know what legal games SCO is using to prolong the agony, but those games demonstrate the vacuity of the American legal system very well. Almost as well as the simple existence of "law LIBRARIES" does. How, pray tell, can ignorance of the law not be a defense when it is physically impossible for any one person to actually know all the laws?
Bob-
Re:I think you're looking at the wrong thing
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
The situation that I'd like to see made more difficult is someone getting depressed, picking up a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and mowing down everyone in sight.
Did you know that machine guns, both sub- and full, are actually still perfectly legal in these United States? Yet, even though there are about 100,000 legally owned fully automatic weapons in the United States, only one has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.
All the rest, regardless of prohibition, have been illegally possessed. So the prohibitions on big bad evil machine guns has done nothing what so ever to effect crime rates. The people who abide the law are not and never were the problem.
If simple ownership of firearms were to be a hazard, then the crime rates would be the opposite that they are in fact. Everywhere that prohibits "lawful" ownership has much higher crime rates than where "lawful" ownership is easier. Where the laws change, like England, Australia, Florida and dozens of other US states, that same inverse effect is seen with perfect consistency. The rates rise where firearms are further restricted, and drop where restrictions are loosened.
I do really understand what you are getting at. It is a demonstrable fact that prohibition is exactly the wrong thing to achieve your goal.
John R. Lott ran the numbers of multiple victim shootings, the very thing you are concerned about, against the changes in laws regarding firearms ownership. Multiple victim shootings showed the greatest effect of the changes, with their incidence nearly vanishing when the laws were changed to make lawful carrying of arms easier.
In those places where firearms are the most restricted, like NY trains, public schools, government offices and restaurants that serve alcohol, multiple victim shootings are the most likely to happen.
There are two obvious lesson here: Those people who abide the law are not now, and have never been, the problem; Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Bob-
Re:I think you're looking at the wrong thing
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
I am not a gun owner and I know jack shit about guns, so go easy on me here.
No problem, I understand.
The "issue" you have with firearms is based on emotion without experience or context. We can sit here and argue hardware all day long, but it won't get us any closer to having a context.
For context, I think there are two sites you should take some time to explore: http://www.jpfo.org and http://www.lneilsmith.com
I can especially recommend L. Neil's essay entitled "Why did it have to be 'guns'?"
There is more, of course, such as the fact that in every state where it has been made easier for people to lawfully own and carry firearms, crime rates went down. Every state. The one state with no firearms laws at all, meaning you can put an Uzi under your coat and go to the grocery store and no one will say "boo" about it, has the lowest crime rate in the nation. Chicago and Washington DC have very tight gun control, and tend to swap places at numbers 1 and 2 for highest numbers of murders ever year.
Gun control is not and has never been about crime.
I say you're looking at the wrong thing because I don't care if a hunting rifle fires a heavier slug faster because that is not a weapon designed to kill many people. It's designed to kill one deer. I object to weapons that shoot low-velocity rounds that produce little recoil so you can just blanket an area in lead. What sporting purpose do these weapons serve short of giving a deer a heart attack?
I quote that paragraph in its entirety, because it's important for you to understand how ignorant of hardware it is. The fact that you think "produce little recoil" is a valid statement shows the truth about your stated lack of experience.
Everything in this paragraph is belied by something you have no objection to: The Shotgun. A 12-gage with 00-buckshot puts out exactly the kind of barage of lead (or steel) that blankets an area as you are afraid of.
In the 2.5 seconds it takes me to empty a pump-action shotgun, more "bullets" are fired into the air than an Uzi sub-machine gun with a high-capacity magazine. Yet I can buy one at any gun shop and many hardware stores in great variety and quantity.
That is why we can argue abou hardware until we're both blue in the face. The real issue isn't hardware, it never has been.
That is also why this "assault weapon ban" was bogus, it was written to demonize emotionally charged yet irrelevant physical features, that have nothing to do with function, in order to confuse people into thinking that the ban effected machine guns and thus generate an emotional response in people who have no experience.
But isn't that because the AK's can be easily modified to fire full-auto?
No, No NO. See, even you bought into the implied evils. The fact is that no semi-auto can be sold in the US if the BATF experts find it easy to "convert" to full auto. That's the law already, it has been since 1968.
There is no logic there because you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't pick up a can of beer or a joint and kill somebody with it.
So all those "Driving Under The Influence" laws are bogus and you want to see them repealed as useless? Funny thing is, I agree with you to a point: It is the act of driving drunk that is prosecutable because it creates a specific hazard to others. Just like my swinging a fire-extinguisher at peoples heads, yet fire-extinguishers are neither illegal nor regulated at all.
I am comparing, explicitly and deliberately, PEACEFUL ownership. My owning a gun endangers you not at all, because I will not point it at you. Just like my having a beer does not endanger you because I won't drink it and then drive. Etc, etc, etc. All very comparable because I am comparing actions with actions.
The problem being that you have been trained to fear firearms in the hands of citizens. Yet there are more than 500 MILLION private firearms in the United States alone. Nearly two for ever man, woman and child. There are far more gun owners than are advertized, because many gun owners know that there are people, like you, who are afraid of their neighbors and want to see them disarmed for no reason other than that fear.
And what difference would it have made if the Washington Area Snipers had used a bolt-action rifle? Likely, they would have killed far more of the people they hit. As you make clear, there is no emotional hook for the prohibitionists to use with a bolt-action rifle regardless of its effectiveness, unlike the ugly guns which they can use to inspire that "fear of your neighbors" thing.
Have you read any L. Neil Smith? Sure he uses these plot elements from time to time, but that would be like not using computers.
Try especially Pallas, which many consider his best or at least #2, and his upcoming two Ceres and Ares. They actually avoid all your worrysom overused plot lines.
You obviously haven't read any L. Neil Smith. Not only is his work very much "Science Fiction" as opposed to fantasy, the future is up-beat and positive.
Challenging? Heck yes, but not gloomy.
Maybe you're just reading writers who have run out of ideas.
Bob-
Sturm Gewere (pardon my German)
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the.30-06. The.30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
I still have a mouse I got in 1991, one of those square Logitech serial three-button mice. The thing is, it's cool.
It functions well, feels good, looks great, the three buttons give full Xwindows functionality (none of this silly 3-button emulation!), and it's noticed because nothing made today bears any resemblance to it.
I'm going to be so bummed out if it ever breaks, it's irreplaceable.
Commercial driving on government roads is a licensed activity, historically based on the control of commercial use of taxpayer funded facilities.
When I received my first drivers license, New York was still honest enough to print on it, "Chauffeur's License" as the original laws were written.
That is why you don't need a license to "drive" your bicycle, horse, tractor, baby carriage, roller-blades, or other such private things on the public roads. They're ours, we paid for them, and as long as we obey the rules of the road we have done nothing wrong.
Driving a car on private property requires no licensing, has no speed limits, no age limits, no requirement that any of the "legalities" of "rules of the road" be obeyed at all. Driving certainly is a "right", just like farting.
The fact that the laws on commercial use have been expanded over time to cover private use of private cars doesn't make it any less a right. It merely means that the State treats it as a privilege and enforces it as such.
Assuming that the public trust is not betrayed by politicians in power,
I, too, wish the world were perfect. Unfortunately, power not only corrupts, it attracts the corrupt and corruptable.
So I must submit that your assumption does not reflect the real world.
As to the economies of scale, that is what class action suits are designed to overcome. Paying for the clean-up of your 1.1 acres by BigMightyPowerCompany might very well be trivial, but it's not trivial when several thousand or million people's property is being soiled.
Biodiversity is easy to demonstrate considering private property. It is private property owners who protect the animals on their land, it is individuals who choose to harbor and save endangered species. There are also millions of people like yourself who are concerned about this. I am certain that you would contribute to the effort if the Government weren't taking 80% of your economic potential, just as I am certain that those who already contribute would contribute even more if they thereby had more to give.
I know I would. And do.
By expressing a personal priority, you demonstrate that it is something that you would contribute to in the absence of government reallocation of my money doing it for you.
The prime plank of the Libertarian principle is that you take responsibility for the things important to you, rather than having your priorities set by force by someone else.
Just because your pet project(s) isn't mentioned explicitly only means that there are lots of people who believe government has no place dealing with it at all.
I had hoped, by way of the evidence of actual thinking in your earlier postings, that if asked directly and politely, you would overcome the all too common reaction of hostility because we disagree.
Since "libertarian" is to eschew force except in defense of property, and "socialism" is to expropriate personal property by force, can you define what you mean by "libertarian socialism"?
With the "government schooling" comment, I attempted to demonstrate that a great number of people are working off of very narrow examples chosen by the state to reenforce its own position, spurred by "whole recorded history" over-generalization. I agree, it was not done well.
I was speaking of mideval Iceland, not the republic of. Norway? Thanks for the pointer.
The fact that peaceful people can indeed be overrun by force, just as peaceful citizens are bullied by "their" government, is not a repudiation of the fact that people did, indeed, come together peacefully in cooperation. That was my point.
I accept that my identification of your source of education may have been incorrect, but as you say it is not in the best interests of a government school to teach that coercive government is not required for peaceful interaction.
Going back to your first post, I find that the basis of our disagreement may very well be the definition of the phrase "long term".
Does the repeated crushing of peaceful cooperation by coercive governments mean that peaceful interaction cannot survive? Or, only that it hasn't because of external factors.
Since I'm not a God, to set up a human population and leave them alone, I cannot answer that one.
What I can say is that I believe Jefferson was correct: The government which governs least governs best. Those times when people exercised the greatest individual latitude in their actions, as opposed to being taxed and regulated by coercive government, peace and prosperity were and are the rule.
To return to the subject, a "lack" of governance, "anarchy", does not lead to violent chaos.
As is seen in Afganistan and Iraq right now, government does not automatically lead to peace either.
In the US, many major cities have really big Roundabouts, called "beltways", around them. Look at a map of Washington DC, Indianapolis, Raleigh, etc.
Tokyo recently completed a subway called the "Oedo" line that encircles the center of the city, complementing the "Yamanote" elevated rail line that does the same thing.
Boston, which being on the water cannot have a "beltway" entirely around it, still has spokes and wheel-segment designs.
I just realized, Paris is build substantially in that same respect.
Maybe we've hit on a fundamental human traffic design pattern. Not perfect, but as flexible and efficient as possible given human interaction patterns.
Tell me Mr. Libertarian, would the LP have done anything differently with the DOJ antitrust case against Microsoft?
Without doubt. First of all, Microsoft never forced anyone to use their products. So long as Microsoft doesn't use force or fraud, they have committed no crime.
So the prosecution may have happened anyway, but for entirely different reasons.
Microsoft did, indeed, use fraud often and widely to crush others, they stole ideas and code freely. They fabricated evidence that was used in the trial. For all these reasons Microsoft should have been prosecuted, not for simply being purchased by a large number of people.
Another thing Libertarians would have done differently is in not accepting product instead of cash for the penalty. Imagine that, Microsoft gets to write off $300 of their "punishment" for the cost of a $.50 CD, and then charge the "winner" when the time comes for upgrading.
What about the FCC restrictions on media ownership, aren't those rather anti-libertarian?
Far more anti-liberty are the restrictions that say I cannot operate a radio or television station, without licenses and permits which ensure that only large corporations are able to afford to transmit.
The FCC was established to censor and control media reporting of the abuses of government. Just like the RailRoad Commission, it was designed and built in cooperation with Big Media, who ensured that the resulting rules and regulations (while an occasional minor hindrance) prevented competition.
The illusion many people have about freedom is that those who espouse it believe it will ensure the perfect world. But Utopia was the creation of a philosophy of total control, not freedom.
The benefits of freedom don't mean there will be no criminals, no idiots, no one trying to get ahead by screwing their fellows.
The benefit of freedom is that such people will not have the monopoly on force that government makes available for their own use. No badges to hide behind, no ability to avoid responsibility by claiming they were just following orders.
They will have to get ahead by making a better product, providing a better service. Just like the peaceful, productive people who make up the large majority of everyone does right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument repeatedly returns to hardware, that there are attributes of hardware what you wish to prohibit but not "all guns".
It is time for you to define "assault weapon", since that is what you wish to prohibit.
It's not a machine gun or sub-machine gun, since that would be "assault rifle" and is already covered by law.
So what is it? Is it the black plastic you don't like?
That is why we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
.22 for exactly the same reasons.
False. Didn't you read what I wrote? Erase the laws of prohibition and prosecute murder, assault, endangerment, whatever, regardless of the weapon used.
The "laws that are already on the books" have been on the books for 4 thousand years. Murder has been illegal the entire time, gun control had no effect on that.
I think you're equating banning assault weapons with banning all guns.
No, I'm extending your logic to its rational, reasonable conclusion. If I cannot be trusted with a machine gun, then I cannot be trusted with a
That is why the 1934 NFA isn't the only gun control law. Once begun, the basic logic that people cannot be trusted with their own arms leads to only one conclusion: Disarmament.
This is why soldiers, whose job is to kill as many opposing soldiers as possible, carry assault weapons and not hunting rifles or Saturday-night specials.
Look again. Soldiers carry anything and everything. Military shotguns, for instance. The venerable 1911 military pistol had only 7 rounds, showing the absurdity of the assertion that only the military "needs" high capacity magazines. The "Liberator" was junk by any measure, yet worked very well indeed.
The ugly rifle ban certainly did infringe upon my right to choose my own defense, since I was unable to purchase such an ugly gun if that indeed was what I concluded would fit my needs best. Prohibitions on Nigger Town Saturday Night Specials mean poor people cannot afford legal arms for their defense. How many times must prohibition fail before you give up on it?
By taking it upon yourself to make that choice for others, you have made yourself morally liable for anyone who died because their choices were limited.
Are you ready for that?
Bob-
I'm sure we could find examples for just about any hardware. But that's not the point.
I agree with you, but I see that you're still arguing from emotion. You assert many things you don't want to see happen, without any support for the underlying concept that private ownership of machine guns makes your worries any more likely.
But if you were going to keep a weapon for self-defense, would you really choose an AK-47 to defend your dark house!? Of course not.
Here is one crux of the matter. Why do you get to choose what other people may or may not own? How can you know that an AK-47 isn't exactly the right weapon for self defense in some situation?
Are you willing to be prosecuted for murder when your prohibition costs lives?
If it were up to me, the US would pass a real assault weapons ban with real penalties like in DC if you are caught with an illegal weapon.
Yet DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Because you cannot go beyond your own emotional response and grasp reality, you would condemn the entire nation to such murder rates.
Where gun control is lower, crime rates are lower.
I may not be a gun expert, but I am not stupid, either.
Prove it. Support your tales of woe and fear with facts, if you have them.
If not, then move beyond your fear and embrace the benefits of Liberty. Free people are peaceful people, armed societies are polite societies. If you don't have the experience, go get it. Don't just mouth platitudes and repeat myths of woe.
Bob-
Thank you, that at least explains the availability of said information.
If I were the judge at this point, actually a point long past, I would have required SCO to show the evidence of wrongdoing that they had in order to bring the case in the first place.
And then, when they produced nothing, throw the case out on its face right then and there. Period.
I don't know what legal games SCO is using to prolong the agony, but those games demonstrate the vacuity of the American legal system very well. Almost as well as the simple existence of "law LIBRARIES" does. How, pray tell, can ignorance of the law not be a defense when it is physically impossible for any one person to actually know all the laws?
Bob-
The situation that I'd like to see made more difficult is someone getting depressed, picking up a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and mowing down everyone in sight.
Did you know that machine guns, both sub- and full, are actually still perfectly legal in these United States? Yet, even though there are about 100,000 legally owned fully automatic weapons in the United States, only one has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.
All the rest, regardless of prohibition, have been illegally possessed. So the prohibitions on big bad evil machine guns has done nothing what so ever to effect crime rates. The people who abide the law are not and never were the problem.
If simple ownership of firearms were to be a hazard, then the crime rates would be the opposite that they are in fact. Everywhere that prohibits "lawful" ownership has much higher crime rates than where "lawful" ownership is easier. Where the laws change, like England, Australia, Florida and dozens of other US states, that same inverse effect is seen with perfect consistency. The rates rise where firearms are further restricted, and drop where restrictions are loosened.
I do really understand what you are getting at. It is a demonstrable fact that prohibition is exactly the wrong thing to achieve your goal.
John R. Lott ran the numbers of multiple victim shootings, the very thing you are concerned about, against the changes in laws regarding firearms ownership. Multiple victim shootings showed the greatest effect of the changes, with their incidence nearly vanishing when the laws were changed to make lawful carrying of arms easier.
In those places where firearms are the most restricted, like NY trains, public schools, government offices and restaurants that serve alcohol, multiple victim shootings are the most likely to happen.
There are two obvious lesson here: Those people who abide the law are not now, and have never been, the problem; Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Bob-
I am not a gun owner and I know jack shit about guns, so go easy on me here.
No problem, I understand.
The "issue" you have with firearms is based on emotion without experience or context. We can sit here and argue hardware all day long, but it won't get us any closer to having a context.
For context, I think there are two sites you should take some time to explore: http://www.jpfo.org and http://www.lneilsmith.com
I can especially recommend L. Neil's essay entitled "Why did it have to be 'guns'?"
There is more, of course, such as the fact that in every state where it has been made easier for people to lawfully own and carry firearms, crime rates went down. Every state. The one state with no firearms laws at all, meaning you can put an Uzi under your coat and go to the grocery store and no one will say "boo" about it, has the lowest crime rate in the nation. Chicago and Washington DC have very tight gun control, and tend to swap places at numbers 1 and 2 for highest numbers of murders ever year.
Gun control is not and has never been about crime.
I say you're looking at the wrong thing because I don't care if a hunting rifle fires a heavier slug faster because that is not a weapon designed to kill many people. It's designed to kill one deer. I object to weapons that shoot low-velocity rounds that produce little recoil so you can just blanket an area in lead. What sporting purpose do these weapons serve short of giving a deer a heart attack?
I quote that paragraph in its entirety, because it's important for you to understand how ignorant of hardware it is. The fact that you think "produce little recoil" is a valid statement shows the truth about your stated lack of experience.
Everything in this paragraph is belied by something you have no objection to: The Shotgun. A 12-gage with 00-buckshot puts out exactly the kind of barage of lead (or steel) that blankets an area as you are afraid of.
In the 2.5 seconds it takes me to empty a pump-action shotgun, more "bullets" are fired into the air than an Uzi sub-machine gun with a high-capacity magazine. Yet I can buy one at any gun shop and many hardware stores in great variety and quantity.
That is why we can argue abou hardware until we're both blue in the face. The real issue isn't hardware, it never has been.
That is also why this "assault weapon ban" was bogus, it was written to demonize emotionally charged yet irrelevant physical features, that have nothing to do with function, in order to confuse people into thinking that the ban effected machine guns and thus generate an emotional response in people who have no experience.
I look forward to your reply.
Bob-
I thought that case was sealed? How can they use testimony from that case?
Bob-
Here's an L. Neil Smith article on the subject of this Slashdot article:
http://www.lneilsmith.com/bulgaria.html
Bob-
Here's an L. Neil Smith article on the subject of this Slashdot article:
http://www.lneilsmith.com/bulgaria.html
Bob-
But isn't that because the AK's can be easily modified to fire full-auto?
No, No NO. See, even you bought into the implied evils. The fact is that no semi-auto can be sold in the US if the BATF experts find it easy to "convert" to full auto. That's the law already, it has been since 1968.
There is no logic there because you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't pick up a can of beer or a joint and kill somebody with it.
So all those "Driving Under The Influence" laws are bogus and you want to see them repealed as useless? Funny thing is, I agree with you to a point: It is the act of driving drunk that is prosecutable because it creates a specific hazard to others. Just like my swinging a fire-extinguisher at peoples heads, yet fire-extinguishers are neither illegal nor regulated at all.
I am comparing, explicitly and deliberately, PEACEFUL ownership. My owning a gun endangers you not at all, because I will not point it at you. Just like my having a beer does not endanger you because I won't drink it and then drive. Etc, etc, etc. All very comparable because I am comparing actions with actions.
The problem being that you have been trained to fear firearms in the hands of citizens. Yet there are more than 500 MILLION private firearms in the United States alone. Nearly two for ever man, woman and child. There are far more gun owners than are advertized, because many gun owners know that there are people, like you, who are afraid of their neighbors and want to see them disarmed for no reason other than that fear.
And what difference would it have made if the Washington Area Snipers had used a bolt-action rifle? Likely, they would have killed far more of the people they hit. As you make clear, there is no emotional hook for the prohibitionists to use with a bolt-action rifle regardless of its effectiveness, unlike the ugly guns which they can use to inspire that "fear of your neighbors" thing.
Bob-
Have you read any L. Neil Smith? Sure he uses these plot elements from time to time, but that would be like not using computers.
Try especially Pallas, which many consider his best or at least #2, and his upcoming two Ceres and Ares. They actually avoid all your worrysom overused plot lines.
Bob-
You obviously haven't read any L. Neil Smith. Not only is his work very much "Science Fiction" as opposed to fantasy, the future is up-beat and positive.
Challenging? Heck yes, but not gloomy.
Maybe you're just reading writers who have run out of ideas.
Bob-
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
.30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
Bob-
I still have a mouse I got in 1991, one of those square Logitech serial three-button mice. The thing is, it's cool.
It functions well, feels good, looks great, the three buttons give full Xwindows functionality (none of this silly 3-button emulation!), and it's noticed because nothing made today bears any resemblance to it.
I'm going to be so bummed out if it ever breaks, it's irreplaceable.
Bob-
.02 FRN's says it's Feinswine.
They could make it 11 times faster merely by continuing to use whatever it is they already have in addition to the new cluster.
"But this one goes to eleven!"
Bob-
Commercial driving on government roads is a licensed activity, historically based on the control of commercial use of taxpayer funded facilities.
When I received my first drivers license, New York was still honest enough to print on it, "Chauffeur's License" as the original laws were written.
That is why you don't need a license to "drive" your bicycle, horse, tractor, baby carriage, roller-blades, or other such private things on the public roads. They're ours, we paid for them, and as long as we obey the rules of the road we have done nothing wrong.
Driving a car on private property requires no licensing, has no speed limits, no age limits, no requirement that any of the "legalities" of "rules of the road" be obeyed at all. Driving certainly is a "right", just like farting.
The fact that the laws on commercial use have been expanded over time to cover private use of private cars doesn't make it any less a right. It merely means that the State treats it as a privilege and enforces it as such.
Bob-
Pebs,
I wish there were some way to lock this article so yours would be the only comment.
Bob-
SOLAR WARMING!
Assuming that the public trust is not betrayed by politicians in power,
I, too, wish the world were perfect. Unfortunately, power not only corrupts, it attracts the corrupt and corruptable.
So I must submit that your assumption does not reflect the real world.
As to the economies of scale, that is what class action suits are designed to overcome. Paying for the clean-up of your 1.1 acres by BigMightyPowerCompany might very well be trivial, but it's not trivial when several thousand or million people's property is being soiled.
Biodiversity is easy to demonstrate considering private property. It is private property owners who protect the animals on their land, it is individuals who choose to harbor and save endangered species. There are also millions of people like yourself who are concerned about this. I am certain that you would contribute to the effort if the Government weren't taking 80% of your economic potential, just as I am certain that those who already contribute would contribute even more if they thereby had more to give.
I know I would. And do.
By expressing a personal priority, you demonstrate that it is something that you would contribute to in the absence of government reallocation of my money doing it for you.
The prime plank of the Libertarian principle is that you take responsibility for the things important to you, rather than having your priorities set by force by someone else.
Just because your pet project(s) isn't mentioned explicitly only means that there are lots of people who believe government has no place dealing with it at all.
Bob-
Your short answer is no answer at all.
I had hoped, by way of the evidence of actual thinking in your earlier postings, that if asked directly and politely, you would overcome the all too common reaction of hostility because we disagree.
I was wrong.
Pardon me, I have to ask.
Since "libertarian" is to eschew force except in defense of property, and "socialism" is to expropriate personal property by force, can you define what you mean by "libertarian socialism"?
With the "government schooling" comment, I attempted to demonstrate that a great number of people are working off of very narrow examples chosen by the state to reenforce its own position, spurred by "whole recorded history" over-generalization. I agree, it was not done well.
Bob-
I was speaking of mideval Iceland, not the republic of. Norway? Thanks for the pointer.
The fact that peaceful people can indeed be overrun by force, just as peaceful citizens are bullied by "their" government, is not a repudiation of the fact that people did, indeed, come together peacefully in cooperation. That was my point.
I accept that my identification of your source of education may have been incorrect, but as you say it is not in the best interests of a government school to teach that coercive government is not required for peaceful interaction.
Going back to your first post, I find that the basis of our disagreement may very well be the definition of the phrase "long term".
Does the repeated crushing of peaceful cooperation by coercive governments mean that peaceful interaction cannot survive? Or, only that it hasn't because of external factors.
Since I'm not a God, to set up a human population and leave them alone, I cannot answer that one.
What I can say is that I believe Jefferson was correct: The government which governs least governs best. Those times when people exercised the greatest individual latitude in their actions, as opposed to being taxed and regulated by coercive government, peace and prosperity were and are the rule.
To return to the subject, a "lack" of governance, "anarchy", does not lead to violent chaos.
As is seen in Afganistan and Iraq right now, government does not automatically lead to peace either.
Bob-
In the US, many major cities have really big Roundabouts, called "beltways", around them. Look at a map of Washington DC, Indianapolis, Raleigh, etc.
Tokyo recently completed a subway called the "Oedo" line that encircles the center of the city, complementing the "Yamanote" elevated rail line that does the same thing.
Boston, which being on the water cannot have a "beltway" entirely around it, still has spokes and wheel-segment designs.
I just realized, Paris is build substantially in that same respect.
Maybe we've hit on a fundamental human traffic design pattern. Not perfect, but as flexible and efficient as possible given human interaction patterns.
Bob-
Tell me Mr. Libertarian, would the LP have done anything differently with the DOJ antitrust case against Microsoft?
Without doubt. First of all, Microsoft never forced anyone to use their products. So long as Microsoft doesn't use force or fraud, they have committed no crime.
So the prosecution may have happened anyway, but for entirely different reasons.
Microsoft did, indeed, use fraud often and widely to crush others, they stole ideas and code freely. They fabricated evidence that was used in the trial. For all these reasons Microsoft should have been prosecuted, not for simply being purchased by a large number of people.
Another thing Libertarians would have done differently is in not accepting product instead of cash for the penalty. Imagine that, Microsoft gets to write off $300 of their "punishment" for the cost of a $.50 CD, and then charge the "winner" when the time comes for upgrading.
What about the FCC restrictions on media ownership, aren't those rather anti-libertarian?
Far more anti-liberty are the restrictions that say I cannot operate a radio or television station, without licenses and permits which ensure that only large corporations are able to afford to transmit.
The FCC was established to censor and control media reporting of the abuses of government. Just like the RailRoad Commission, it was designed and built in cooperation with Big Media, who ensured that the resulting rules and regulations (while an occasional minor hindrance) prevented competition.
The illusion many people have about freedom is that those who espouse it believe it will ensure the perfect world. But Utopia was the creation of a philosophy of total control, not freedom.
The benefits of freedom don't mean there will be no criminals, no idiots, no one trying to get ahead by screwing their fellows.
The benefit of freedom is that such people will not have the monopoly on force that government makes available for their own use. No badges to hide behind, no ability to avoid responsibility by claiming they were just following orders.
They will have to get ahead by making a better product, providing a better service. Just like the peaceful, productive people who make up the large majority of everyone does right now.
Bob-