Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 7. (Read 10908 times)

If your incompetence with using something can infringe on my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then yes some rights do need "proving" .... but really what we are debating here is the existence of revocable rights vs. privileges .... It's my belief that I and all people are born with the ability to do pretty much what they will so long as it is not a hindrance upon someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... if I was so incompetent at firearms that I could not prove my competence to handle them with a simple certification program then I should not be allowed to legally purchase them, nor should someone legally be able to sell them to me.... but say I had one given to me as a gift or inherited from a deceased grand parent, no one should be able to stop me from taking ownership as it is not a sales transaction.  If I choose to then go out and use it no one should be able to stop me assuming I am not doing something to infringe on someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ... if I prove that I was truly incompetent and irresponsible the law should throw the book at me for operating firearms while incompetent ... up to and including manslaughter (even if all I did was pull a bad version of a Cheney) but that's for the judge to decide.

Rights don't need proving.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

No limits but....

1) Automatics should require extensive training and certification
2) Non-automatics should require extensive training and certification over certain reasonable calibre's/power
3) Basic non-automatics should require basic firearms safety certification

4) Explosives + should require justification, training, certification, registration and inspection
5) weapons classified as WMD's should be available only to restricted governmental agencies and even then have preferential usage for peaceful civilian purposes over military might (i.e. nuclear power plants instead of nuclear bombs)

6) Concealed carry should be legal for the weopons described in item 3, with additional training and certification requirements

7) Criminal offenses of certain kinds should come with all weapon (guns, knives, shivs, barbie dolls with extra sharp pointy breasteses, whatever) restrictions, including in some cases banning/no-right-to-use, random inspection of person/premises for firearms etc.  From which even the attempt to reacquire weapons by said persons should land them back in court for appropriate disciplinary action.

All weapons sales should require criminal background history check, but no weapon ownership registration unless a previous bullet dictates otherwise.  Exemption: small knives with blades under a certain length, and items commonly used in standard home living (kitchen knives etc. no a machete is not a commonly used kitchen utensil)


Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

CYA laws that should be on the books -
1) Gun safe usage (If your child brings guns to school, or blows off tommy's head because he stole his transformer toys then parents/guardians should be charged with involuntary manslaughter and child abuse as well as see all their offspring sent to foster care and mental health rehabilitation, not entirely opposed to mandatory removal of their ability to produce any more offspring as well since they have proven to be careless, irresponsible and incapable parents/guardians)

For some people, yes, it is.

Is it that hard to imagine there's no countries?

Who pays for the jail?

I think we should be able to have any small arms (small arms are .50cal or less). That includes full autos. However, I support full liability for anyone who wants to have one. If you shoot your gun and the bullet goes wild, hitting someone on accident, you go to jail. (no matter how rich you are)

I challenge your assumption that government employees have to work to receive their living

Ok, so, why is one person's sense of "moral values" and "national duty" more correct than another's? Are you saying that those who work in the private sector, or even business owners themselves who are running for-profits, can't have moral values or a sense of national duty? Or are you claiming that any addition of money (profit) corrupts morals and duty? Do you think government employees work for a sense of morals and duty, or do they work to earn a living? And what happens what a government employee's moral values or sense of national duty do not agree with your own? I.e. what happens when someone from the government says one thing is correct (ban gay marriage, invade random countries), but you don't think that is moral or good for the country? You can't vote the employees out, but they have the power to force you to live in a way you don't think is right...

Or, to keep it on the topic of weapons, what if you think that having at most 5 nukes is enough to keep us safe, but the government insists on building 20,000 of them, in the process creating enough destructive force to obliterate the planet, and then having to waste billions to keep the weapons safe and secure, while creating problems such as environmental pollution, and greatly increasing the risk of nukes available for theft or accidental detonation? All democracy/military here, no profit incentives. How do you deal with that? (Personally, I don't think anyone in a free-market society would stockpile nukes, since it's just a waste of money)

First off, Remember that whole "in part" bit?

Secondly, it took 600 years for England to take down Ireland. I'd hardly call that "as soon at it met competition."

Now, since you're talking to me again, I'd very much value your opinion on life insurance.

As I said, if you can disprove anything I say, do so.

I never said or implied that anyone was challenging that. What I was saying was that government workers do not have the incentives required to keep them in line. Perhaps, as you say, some do, and act out of a sense of national duty, or moral values. But you have to accept that people who seek power are not necessarily motivated by a sense of duty to their fellowman. The only thing they all have in common is a desire for power. And if you think that evil people do not desire power, you're a more naive person than you think me to be.

Then do you have a solution? What reforms will remove coercion from the system, and place the incentives correctly?

I called him a stalker not because he challenged my views (you'll note I never called you a stalker), but because he is stalking me.

First you start with another insult, your assumption of a lack of literacy.


Second,  your only two examples are poor at best.   One is a isolated island in the north and just by your own wording, pre-conquest Ireland which I have been reading on and there was a tribal government system that was not voluntary and had a hierarchy.   Even if we did accept your examples (which I don't), they all fell apart as soon at it met competition from other civilizations.  That in fact shows one of the major weaknesses about the inability to defend themselves from external threat.  


You can preach about non-violence all you want but that is not what you will find in "this" world called Earth.  You need to accept that as something this AnCap will deal with anywhere it tries to take hold.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqt-6N7pPjY

I thought I just leave that here

But we're not in that thread. We're in an entirely different one. You came in here specifically to make a statement about me. Unless you're a "gun freedom activist," too? If so, I'd greatly appreciate hearing what weapons you think shouldn't be legally available.


You can read, right? The facts you quoted earlier. And actually, a great deal of what I discuss has been done before, in whole or in part, is societies such as medieval Iceland, or pre-conquest Ireland. And those societies lasted much longer than the less than 250 yrs the US has.

Myrkul likes to cling to his myopic Freudian view of human nature that perfectly supports his other political views.  He calls assertions facts and his opinion as truth. 

I like how he says that incentives work when NO ONE is challenging that.  He does allows for things like moral values and national duty as proper incentives to help and make a government work. 

He harps about force and how everything should be voluntary or it is evil.  He agrees that American government workers incentives are wrong but his only option is no government, not major reformation of our constitutional democratic republic that he currently lives in and enjoys the benefits of (I can only assume).  Fringe logic to support fringe ideals to make him and his cohorts feel better that they are serving "the system", just sounds like some militant hippies transported from the 60s.

Sidenote:  I love when someone challenges his views, the first thing he does is insult them by calling them a stalker.  This is not a intellectual we are dealing with, more of a propagandist (propaganda is not an inheirently bad word either, depends on how you use it, look it up).

Let's see - you're the one who started a thread with my username in the title. I don't stalk users here - I happen across strange individuals such as yourself obsessively pushing your fantasy pseudo politics.


What facts? Most everything you discuss is about hypothetical fantasy societies in the future.

As for global warming, everything you posted that you thought was a fact was crap you pulled from deniers' blogs and sites, each with extensive published refutations.

Oh look, my stalker is back. You're welcome to try and refute any of those facts, if you like. I'm sure I'll enjoy trouncing you again.

Myrkul is entitled to his opinions. But he's not entitled to his facts. And he only argues opinions, because that's all he can do.

Well, I guess I was wrong. You don't know that you're beat.

You have to remember some basic economics: incentives work. When people have an incentive to do something, they do. When they don't have an incentive to do something, they generally don't.

Indeed. By allowing them to take their funding by force, they do not need to keep the populace happy (and thus, their money flowing). Most government employees don't even see re-election. So there's no incentive to make sure the people are well served. Their only obligation is to the government that employs them.

Because the incentives are screwed up.