"Why does anybody need an assault weapon"

IDK. I'm kind of an oddball. I grew up in a liberal family, but was raised farming, shooting, and riding dirt bikes etc. I like guns, I respect them. You can't just say inner city people can't have assault weapons, but something has to change. It aint working.
 
desert dude said:
From top to bottom, the Obama administration sucks bawls!

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/17/why-does-anybody-need-an-assault-weapon

"The appropriate answer to "Who the hell needs ... ?" is "hey, if you don't want one, don't buy it." The right to own stuff without an explanation is the right to be free.

Oh ... And Leon, all bullets are armor-piercing, depending on the armor. You might want to bone up on that, given that you're the Secretary of Defense."
Click to expand...

For every conservative/right-wing argument that includes the word liberty, the word can be replaced with property and the argument would still work. Therefore in conservative/right-wing thinking, liberty = property.
 
That's true for the most part AC but I don't see it as a bad thing like you do. You could replace the words pursuit of happiness with the right to property ownership and it would have conveyed the founders ideals. Like most non-communists, they believed a man could only be truly free if he was the king of his castle. If the state or "the people" controlled property ownership, then the liberties that come with being the king of your own castle are not available to people.

I won't rehash old arguments over the merits of socialist/libertarianism (still think that's an oxymoron) other than to give you the respect of saying you've evolved past the rest of the human race. Maybe when humans catch up to your level of enlightenment it will work. Until then I don't want to have to ask permission to paint my ceiling.
 
Sorry, last was a bit snarky.

I don't know about your part of the world (where it seems mostly news about shootings are either about cops shooting people/dogs or dumb fucks killing kids in schools and colleges) but we don't have nearly as many guns in legal hands around here.
Even with Oscar killing his wife I still think our gun laws are very negative for society in general.

Disarm the innocent all you want, the criminals will still have guns, you are just making it easier for them.
 
ginwilly said:
That's true for the most part AC but I don't see it as a bad thing like you do. You could replace the words pursuit of happiness with the right to property ownership and it would have conveyed the founders ideals. Like most non-communists, they believed a man could only be truly free if he was the king of his castle. If the state or "the people" controlled property ownership, then the liberties that come with being the king of your own castle are not available to people.

I won't rehash old arguments over the merits of socialist/libertarianism (still think that's an oxymoron) other than to give you the respect of saying you've evolved past the rest of the human race. Maybe when humans catch up to your level of enlightenment it will work. Until then I don't want to have to ask permission to paint my ceiling.
Click to expand...

Clearly the founders loved the king. Obviously.

It isn't socialist/libertarianism it is Libertarian Socialism. It is kind of flippant to purposely say it incorrectly. You think it is an oxymoron because you don't know what a libertarian is. You think a libertarian is an anarchocapitalist, and that is an oxymoron.

Actually, it is not an anarchist at all, it is a statist, and this is pertinent to your jab at the philosophy you have just intentionally misnamed. It is statist because the state is required to protect private property. Furthermore, your patronization about my evolution is as much a strawman as your ceiling. Soon enough it will catch on and people will know about this stuff just as well as you and I both do, and then you won't be so smug in your belief that I am of a fringe minority.

You fools do so love to attribute to me the view which I do not espouse, that property should be held in common or by a state. I think you know better by now. I think this blatant deception has become the bread and butter for discrediting a new thing. Quite simply, you're full of shit.
 
ChesusRice said:
Assault weapons are weapons designed for the express purpose of killing people
Click to expand...

no. an "assault weapon" is a weapon of any sort, even an everyday object like a ball point pen that has been used to assault somebody.

if you mean "assault rifles" then youre still wrong, since their objective is to WOUND people. but those rifles are already illegal.

it's amazing how little you know about firearms and their functions.
 
Little hung up on words aren't we? A + B = C. still

btw, you will never convince me that your definition of a libertarian as a statist is correct no matter how many times you say it. It's almost as tarded as saying Somalia is a representation of libertarianism.

A libertarian today is the same as classic liberalism from yesteryear. The hierarchy of power for a libertarian goes my home> my community > my city > my state > my country. You realize this is the opposite of statism don't you? Also it's the antagonist to socialism, thus, the oxymoron.
 
So to answer the question this thread submits, and as extension to the arguments about private property, the reason why one needs an assault rifle, is to protect property.

Property is not liberty. Liberty is liberty. Property is property.

The state exists to protect private property. Privatize the state, or allow land barons to control private armies and police forces, and you have "voluntaryism". This is a fancy word for feudalism. This is a system where two classes exist, (possibly a third, in the form of a clergy) one being owners, the other being laborers. The laborers are voluntary employees of the land owning elite who have hereditary power. They are not chattel, they may leave the estate upon which they are employed in order to find employment elsewhere. They are paid for their labor, payment which they then use to purchase goods they produced themselves, from the owning class, who takes a portion of the product of the labor and sells it back to them.
 
abandonconflict said:
Clearly the founders loved the king. Obviously.

It isn't socialist/libertarianism it is Libertarian Socialism. It is kind of flippant to purposely say it incorrectly. You think it is an oxymoron because you don't know what a libertarian is. You think a libertarian is an anarchocapitalist, and that is an oxymoron.

Actually, it is not an anarchist at all, it is a statist, and this is pertinent to your jab at the philosophy you have just intentionally misnamed. It is statist because the state is required to protect private property. Furthermore, your patronization about my evolution is as much a strawman as your ceiling. Soon enough it will catch on and people will know about this stuff just as well as you and I both do, and then you won't be so smug in your belief that I am of a fringe minority.

You fools do so love to attribute to me the view which I do not espouse, that property should be held in common or by a state. I think you know better by now. I think this blatant deception has become the bread and butter for discrediting a new thing. Quite simply, you're full of shit.
Click to expand...




 
ginwilly said:
Little hung up on words aren't we? A + B = C. still

btw, you will never convince me that your definition of a libertarian as a statist is correct no matter how many times you say it. It's almost as tarded as saying Somalia is a representation of libertarianism.

A libertarian today is the same as classic liberalism from yesteryear. The hierarchy of power for a libertarian goes my home> my community > my city > my state > my country. You realize this is the opposite of statism don't you?
Click to expand...

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertari*ans', had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over." ~Murray Rothbard,Founder of "American Libertarianism", who coined the phrase "anarcho-capitalism"
 
The freedom to move from the laboring class to the ownership class and vice versa is more possible under a laissez faire system than one of central planning regulatory socialistic crony capitalism.

Let us not ignore the fact crony capitalism is not a product of free markets but a product of abuse of power by government. Crony capitalism is not capitalism.
 
ginwilly said:
The freedom to move from the laboring class to the ownership class and vice versa is more possible under a laissez faire system than one of central planning regulatory socialistic crony capitalism.

Let us not ignore the fact crony capitalism is not a product of free markets but a product of abuse of power by government. Crony capitalism is not capitalism.
Click to expand...

I knew you were going to go there.

First off, I actually agree about there being greater upward mobility under feudalism than under centralized corporatism. That is the funny thing, you are still probably telling yourself that I am pushing something like that. I'm an anarchist bro.

That doesn't make feudalism a good idea.
 
abandonconflict said:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertari*ans', had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over." ~Murray Rothbard,Founder of "American Libertarianism", who coined the phrase "anarcho-capitalism"
Click to expand...

still serving up other people's words.

murray rothbard is not anyone's hero, and YOU are the only one dragging ther river for any rotting bloated corpse you can find.

meanwhile naom chomsky IS your hero and he is a marxist, comminust and in fact every inch the radical leftist putz you insist you are not.

but every time you speak, naom chomsky's semen dribbles down your chin.
 
Dr Kynes said:
still serving up other people's words.

murray rothbard is not anyone's hero, and YOU are the only one dragging ther river for any rotting bloated corpse you can find.

meanwhile naom chomsky IS your hero and he is a marxist, comminust and in fact every inch the radical leftist putz you insist you are not.

but every time you speak, naom chomsky's semen dribbles down your chin.
Click to expand...

I see you're still a republican. How is that working out for you?
 
abandonconflict said:
I knew you were going to go there.

First off, I actually agree about there being greater upward mobility under feudalism than under centralized corporatism. That is the funny thing, you are still probably telling yourself that I am pushing something like that. I'm an anarchist bro.

That doesn't make feudalism a good idea.
Click to expand...

you have to be using Marx's definition of feudalism here, not the earlier usage to describe medieval Europe and shogun era Japan if laissez faire is feudalism to you.
 
ginwilly said:
you have to be using Marx's definition of feudalism here, not the earlier usage to describe medieval Europe and shogun era Japan if laissez faire is feudalism to you.
Click to expand...

Two types of Laissez Faire:

You either have the state serving the interests of capital, by existing almost solely to protect private property (fascism), or you have a privatized state wherein owners of capital command private forces to do so themselves (feudalism).

How many times will you play the 'Marx card' before it stops working? How long do you think it will be effective to associate all dissent with communism before you're obviously full of shit?
 
Yep, Karl Marx's definition. Whether you realize or not, your arguments were originally by Marx. No denying the dude had a brilliant, if not misguided, mind.

for somebody who denies vehemently about being a Marxist, you sure do spout his ideas and use his definitions a lot. I'm starting to think you used the Amway play book and changed the name so you can avoid the stigma associated.

If its all a huge coincidence you should read some Marx, you'll enjoy it.
 
ginwilly said:
Yep, Karl Marx's definition. Whether you realize or not, your arguments were originally by Marx. No denying the dude had a brilliant, if not misguided, mind.
Click to expand...

Deciphering...

"I don't have to respond to you because you sound like Karl Marx, and WHEEW what a relief!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top