Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Criptfeind]

Woh hoh hoh there mainiac.

1: No. Not at all. Why would you say that? Make a real response.

2: Even if you don't break it rules that does not mean you are not being extreme, and of course it depends on how you define extreme anyway, I guess you just don't, since neither side is extreme in your eye.

[mainiac]

Huh?

If people want guns, they will care about gun rights more if there are restrictions on them.  On the other hand if they don't want guns, they won't have that concern.  What is controversial or not real about that response?  Gun owners respond like any other interest group...

[Criptfeind]

Gun people both have a limit on their theoretical power and a limit on how much you can oppress that 'right.' For example: guns being outlawed != working 20 hours shifts in a coal mine until you die of black lung at the age of 34.

[Bauglir]

I really don't see the paradox there, but really only depends on how you look at it.

Well, it seems like an arbitrary government intervention in a person's choice. Now, maybe you're preserving a greater degree of choice thereby (and I could argue with somebody on that basis, but in a different thread methinks), but I almost never see that degree of nuance in arguments. It's almost always, "Big government is wrong! We need to stop the government from interfering in our lives!" and "We need the government to interfere in our lives in this specific way because it's right!" with no admission that maybe other interference could be right, too.

The two are fundamentally opposed, and while you can hold both views and be logically consistent, it requires an acceptance of compromise that's all too rare.

[Strife26]

The NRA would have you look at Chicago or DC for what they fear.

In both places, there are technically ways to legally get firearms permits. In each case (DC is changing a bit after Dc v Heller, note, but it hasn't really settled), no matter what the hell you are willing to do, be it love or money, you can *not* get a fucking permit. Effectively, two cities where most guns are illegal, and you can note that both Chicago and DC are as violent as all heck, including gun crimes. Also, the number of gun crimes certainly did not go down after DC's ban.
Effectively, both cities banned handguns, and this is the sort of regulation that a lot of the anti-gun lobby supports.

[mainiac]

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty ridden hellhole with rampant crime.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty politician ridden hellhole with rampant crime United States Federal Congress.

[Strife26]

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty ridden hellhole with rampant crime.

Yeah, you notice how well they worked out before the Supreme Court said "that's not even remotely constitutional" (twice)? That's what the NRA is afraid of.

[Bdthemag]

Im okay with people being able to own small guns such as pistols to protect themselves. But does a person really need an automatic rifle to defend themselves against criminals?

[Pistolero]

Questions for libertarians:

Do you agree with taxation?
Should the state provide legal services, police forces, and armed forces?
Should the state force companies to be truthful?
Should pornography be regulated?
Should employment standards be regulated?

Are you religious?
If yes, should usury be legal?

Are you an objectivist?
If yes, do you acknowledge forces other than physical compulsion exist?

[Zrk2]

Questions for libertarians:

Do you agree with taxation? Yes
Should the state provide legal services, police forces, and armed forces? Yes
Should the state force companies to be truthful? Yes
Should pornography be regulated? No
Should employment standards be regulated? Please elaborate.

Are you religious?
If yes, should usury be legal?

Are you an objectivist?
If yes, do you acknowledge forces other than physical compulsion exist? Yes.

[Pistolero]

Missed a question btw, should the government protect the individuals freedom to spend their currency, goods, or services however they wish (provided they do not impact on anothers freedom by doing so)?

Employment standards meaning minimum wage, anti truck system laws, health and safety regulations, etc btw. You say you acknowledge that forces other than physical compulsion exist, should the state also restrict an individuals ability to use those forces if they infringe on another citizens freedoms? I'm assuming here that as an objectivist you believe that the state should restrict people from taking things from each other by force of course, if that's not the case let me know.

Oh another new question: should socioeconomic status be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

[Criptfeind]

I'm going tack the same question on to Pistolero that I want him to answer, should one not be able to, though talent or effort, give their children everything they can?

[Pistolero]

That's easy. No. You work for your own gain, your children will work for theirs. Doesn't sound very objectivist to be working for someone elses benefit.

Now, do you think that socioeconomic status should be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

[Criptfeind]

Both.

Also, I guess I can see I can't reach a consensus on this with you, cause generally I feel the stuff you earn should be, you know, yours.