How much DO you want to keep your guns?


PDA






Samurai Penguin
February 15, 2004, 08:10 PM
L. Neil Smith's Page (http://www.lneilsmith.com/howmuchg.html) has a number of essays and ideas peculiar to libertarianism. With all the right/left battles happening around here, I figured we might just want to boil the whole political spectrum down to a RKBA point of view.

Answer, if you wish: How much DO you want to keep your guns?

Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies they want, no matter how pornographic -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Would you agree to halt the "War on Drugs", to leave others alone, even to ruin their lives with alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other substance -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Okay...we know that many of these things are primarily(but not exclusively) the causes of those sheeple who will never be convinced that every gun owner isn't a slavering, kill-crazy homicidal maniac. :rolleyes: That's not the point. Are you better than that? Would you be willing to stand up for, if not neccesarily agree with, their freedoms if you knew they'd stand for yours?

Let the debate begin!

:D

If you enjoyed reading about "How much DO you want to keep your guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
February 15, 2004, 08:30 PM
I'd agree to all of those, save this one...
Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

Why wouldn't I agree to that, you ask? Simple. A child is 50% the man's as well.... Women want equal rights in everything, but if a man wants to keep his child from being killed, he does not receive equal rights.

YammyMonkey
February 15, 2004, 08:31 PM
With the exception of Kiddie porn and kids getting porn on the first one, and assuming I can choose how to enforce the lack of drug useage with my children, yes, I would support or tolerate those, assuming that public funds would not be used to pay for things like drug treatement for the idiots who chose to use them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of free drug trade and abortion, but the former will, in my opinion, work itself out relatively quickly while the latter is already legal.

jsalcedo
February 15, 2004, 08:44 PM
Yes.

Because it is none of my damn business what people read, have sex with, put in their body, worship, own or do in their spare time as long as it hurts no one but themselves.

On the abortion issue the man should have 50% say if he chooses to prove paternity. That would be his business.

The world would be a better place if Darwinism was decriminalized.

SMLE
February 15, 2004, 09:04 PM
if a man wants to keep his child from being killed, he does not receive equal rights. Nor does he undertake equal RESPONSIBILITY. He's not the one who has to carry the fetus to term and then go through labor and delivery or a C-section. Even with modern medical care, pregnancy can be a life threating situation for a variety of reasons.

Standing Wolf
February 15, 2004, 09:07 PM
No deals. I'm keeping my guns. That has nothing to do with anyone else's rights or any other types of rights.

Mulliga
February 15, 2004, 09:08 PM
Why wouldn't I agree to that, you ask? Simple. A child is 50% the man's as well.... Women want equal rights in everything, but if a man wants to keep his child from being killed, he does not receive equal rights.

A common sense viewpoint - shame the newspapers and media never see things the way we do.

All the other libertarian stuff (and I'm a registered Libertarian) is somewhat arguable - border control, abortion, the war on drugs - but guns are not, since guns make sure we can continue to argue about border control and abortion. :)

Black_Talon
February 15, 2004, 09:15 PM
I'd support all of them. I'm a libertarian. As long as whatever other people do doesn't hurt anyone else, they can do *** they want to do.

longrifleman
February 15, 2004, 09:39 PM
I'd agree also. The only part that troubles me is the abortion issue. The child is a separate individual and I think the non-agression principle ( I'm a libertarian also) should apply to them as well as everyone else. I've never managed to figure out how to apply it without expanding govt. power and control beyond a reasonable limit.

This is the core problem with our society. Everyone is eager to use the power of the state to force other people to do what they want. It seems a lot of people are more worried about forcing others to toe the line than to have freedom for themselves. I've never understood this attitude but I see it displayed all the time.

Ryder
February 15, 2004, 11:10 PM
Freedom is self-serve and doesn't exist unless you excercise it. My freedom does not depend on others.

kbr80
February 15, 2004, 11:16 PM
No deals. I'm keeping my guns. That has nothing to do with anyone else's rights or any other types of rights.


I am with Standing Wolf on this. It is my right, no compromise.

HBK
February 15, 2004, 11:26 PM
I'm with Standing Wolf on this one as well.

geekWithA.45
February 15, 2004, 11:32 PM
Ditto Standing Wolf.

Michigander
February 15, 2004, 11:50 PM
Ditto Standing Wolf.

Even though I agree with longrifleman when he says,


The child is a separate individual and I think the non-agression principle ( I'm a libertarian also) should apply to them as well as everyone else.


But it doesn't have a thing to do with my right to self-defence.

Parker Dean
February 16, 2004, 12:12 AM
I think the questionairre is designed to show gun rights supporters as hypocritical as there seems to be an assumption implied that those that support the 2A are likely to be against abortion, for the WO(s)D, etc.

Further, once that hypocriticality is demonstrated it can then be used to attack the 2A supporter position by saying that if you're for infringing on others rights in these other issues, then you cannot logically be against infringements on the 2A.

Apparently they forgot the growing Libertarian movement :D

Anyway, I'm with Standing Wolf, although the abortion issue is pretty sticky since it involves others, like the father and the child to-be.

justice4all
February 16, 2004, 12:23 AM
The question is, would you be willing to vote for a TRULY pro gun candidate or party, if said candidate or party also advocated the other human rights listed? In other words, do you believe in freedom for everyone, or just for people whose lifestyles you agree with? In other words, are you part of the solution, or part of the problem; do you believe in more government or less?

Linux&Gun Guy
February 16, 2004, 12:26 AM
Im a libertarian so anything people do is fine as long as it does not harm others.

If a 'child'(more like teen) goes out looking for porn its safe to say they want to see it. I don't think that should be a crime; if they see the goatse man then hell that comes with the territory.

Now showing kids porn should be illegal because it may hurt them as they don't want to see it.

A baby pre birth depends only on the mother and uses the mothers energy and food to live. The baby can't be cared for by anyone else. I think the baby is part of the mother and can be killed. Its like removing a 6th toe that you don't want. Now once the baby is born kill it and its murder; the baby can be cared for by other people once it is born so it is now its own intity(sp?).

Its the parent(s) choice! If you let the state in on this they could just as easily force you to have an abortion - Look at China! :uhoh:

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 03:42 AM
Q: "Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies they want, no matter how pornographic -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"

A: Anything short of authentic snuff and kiddie porn is O.K. with me.


Q: "Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"


A: Sure! Come on in and grab a seat. But hey, you guys gotta tolerate Christians too! :D



Q: "Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"

A; No deal. I can't support giving one person the right to kill another at whim. Too much.


Q: "Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"

A: Sure, knock yourself out. Use protection! :D

Q: "Would you agree to halt the "War on Drugs", to leave others alone, even to ruin their lives with alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other substance -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"

A: Sure. A grown man (person) should be able to make his own call on what he puts in his body. I wouldn't do drugs personally--hell, I can't stay away from sausage biscuits! No way I could resist crack! :D


Q: "Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?"

A: As long as you are a U.S. citizen (and not serving in an enemy army) you should have the same rights as me.

GHB


how did I do?

corncob
February 16, 2004, 09:07 AM
but I'm game.

I see the point, respect all freedoms or none of them.

And I agree, but the part about abortion is a trick. I am a rational person. Show me some good, hard, reproducible scientifc evidence that something happens when a baby passes through the birth canal that physically changes what it is. The "sixth toe" buisiness is a farce. Every year doctors are able to save infants more and more premature. They are saving preemies WAY before most people are uncomfortable giving the mother the "right to choose," never mind the dispicable practice of partial-birth abortion.

It is unjust for a woman who has been raped to bear a child, but how much MORE unjust is it for a child to be murdered (brutally, I might add) because of circumstances surrounding its conception THAT IT CAN NOT CONTROL.

How about respect human rights for all humans or none of them.

Greg L
February 16, 2004, 09:17 AM
The world would be a better place if Darwinism was decriminalized.

Oooh, I like that one.

Werewolf
February 16, 2004, 10:30 AM
Linking the RKBA to all those other freedoms is nonsense. The exercise of any of the noted freedoms is totally independent of the others. There is no link between them as a whole except at some very highly philosophical, pie in the sky, and extra-cerebral level.

That said and being a libertarian I'd have to say yes (with certain caveats) to everything on the list. It's pretty much none of my business what other folks do as long as what they're doing doesn't take any skin off of my or someone else's back.

I do have a personal moral objection to abortion. I see it as nothing less than murder. However, I'm not sure I have the right, moral/legal obligation or the qualifications to make that judgement for others. (Well actually I could make that judgement but doing so conflicts with my libertarian outlook to a degree that I choose not to).

Kiddie Porn bothers me too. Kids don't have the maturity and/or sufficient life experience to make decisions that involve them in PORN. I don't think the parents should have the right to make that decision for them either . As for adult porn - hey - what ever pops your bubble as long as it don't pop on me is fine.

On the more pragmatic side the question as presented is moot anyway. WE'VE GOT GUNS - THEY DON'T when push comes to shove if we have the will to use them when the time comes it matters not what the bliss ninnies want. If we don't have the will then we don't deserve to keep our guns anyway.

Selfdfenz
February 16, 2004, 11:15 AM
I'm with Standing Wolf.

However, when I read the list of things I would supposedly have to put up with, accept, whatever, it stikes me that 90% of the points are legal, regulated but available or tolerated or unregulated already.

I see this largely as a bogus set of questions from the get go.


And the list is:
Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies they want, no matter how pornographic .....You mean it's not already. Where does the original author live? Sure and heck isn't the same town I live in.

Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists ....I thought there was some kind of Constitutional Amendment about this. Give me some examples where this kind of thing not "protected" in the US. Some of the above have churches/temples/mosques in this town and are building on.

Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) ...Roe vs Wade, this is a non-starter.
Far as I know only partial birth abortion has been restricted/forbidden. My guess, it still goes on. I beleive even married women have the option to abort the fetus of their husband if they so desire in the USA and are half way intelligent in what they say to the abortionist when they make the decision "control their own reproductive process".

Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual .....I can't keep'em from it no matter what I think and neither can anyone else.

Would you agree to halt the "War on Drugs", to leave others alone, even to ruin their lives with alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other substance ....two are legal, plenty of peps are ruining their lives with the other ,the WOD not withstanding. This is the only legit question as there is a WOD. If I was willing to give up on the WOD you can bet I would need to be able to keep my firearms.:D :D There's your 10%.

Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin ....Civil Rights Act of 64 and how many others since that time?? Have I missed a lynching?? No. Another non-starter.

BTW...If you asked Darwin about Darwinism he would likely have no idea about which you speak. Not sure I do either. Darwin outlined a set of scientific theories, not a belief system.

No flames intended. :) < see, smile attached

JMHO and what I get from watching the evening news.
S-

gburner
February 16, 2004, 11:33 AM
As a human being, my absolute right to self defense is ordained by the Creator.
As a law abiding citizen of the United States, my absolute right to keep and bear arms without infingement on that right is guarenteed by the Constitution.
Neither is the result of some quid pro quo deal with the devil.
I retain these rights come hell or high water; regardless of what choices others make or behaviors others involve themselves in.

ReadyontheRight
February 16, 2004, 11:38 AM
No deals regarding my rights, but I support all of the examples anyway. Sounds like the Bill of Rights.

The abortion issue is definitely a tough one. If I had to decide for myself, I wouldn't get an abortion, but there's very little change of that situation happening.

If I had to decide for someone else, I'd sy the cut-off is the point at which an unborn child could survive without the mother. Of course, this point in life is continually changing with improved medical technology.

TallPine
February 16, 2004, 11:39 AM
Freedom for me has to include freedom for everybody else, too - in ALL areas that don't cause direct harm to me or anyone else. That last one is where the abortion issue sticks - but I think it should be up to the individual states since there is nothing explicit protecting it in the Constitution as in free speech, free releigion, and RKBA.

BUT .... you left out Pagans and Wiccans in #2 :neener:

fix
February 16, 2004, 11:40 AM
Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense)

Perhaps if the woman controlled her own reproductive process to begin with, she wouldn't be in the position to have an abortion.

Abortion is not the problem, it is only a symptom. The real problem is our society's continuing quest to eliminate all traces of personal responsibility from the face of the earth.

ReadyontheRight
February 16, 2004, 12:47 PM
Agreed w/ Fix. Abortion s/b a State issue.

justice4all
February 16, 2004, 02:11 PM
If the abortion issue was off the table, a lot more people would vote Republican.

fix
February 16, 2004, 02:14 PM
If the abortion issue was off the table, a lot more people would vote Republican.

If the Republican party assumed a pro-abortion stance, a third party would emerge overnight, much to the consternation of those who suggest it is not possible.

Selfdfenz
February 16, 2004, 03:04 PM
fix

"If the Republican party assumed a pro-abortion stance, a third party would emerge overnight, much to the consternation of those who suggest it is not possible."

Would that such could become a reality.
S-

Nightfall
February 16, 2004, 05:53 PM
...if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
LET me keep my guns? I don't think the 2nd is about anybody letting me keep my guns... ;)

Michigander
February 16, 2004, 06:12 PM
Linking the RKBA to all those other freedoms is nonsense. The exercise of any of the noted freedoms is totally independent of the others. There is no link between them as a whole except at some very highly philosophical, pie in the sky, and extra-cerebral level.


I would argue that all the others are directly tied to the RKBA. If it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, we'd probably be a lot farther along the road to the Nanny States of America. I mean it is written in black and white and the sheeple still don't get it. If it wasn't written at all the entire notion would have probably been erradicated by now.

SoCalGeek
February 16, 2004, 07:17 PM
I know i'm probably saying the same thing as most people already have, but what the hell.

Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies they want, no matter how pornographic -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? With the exception of kiddie porn, yes. Many people under 18 have a tendancy to be exceptionally stupid and would do just about anything for money, not realizing that it could come back to bite them in the ???.

Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? Of course. I don't even understand why this one is being asked, it sends the message that all gun-owners are Christian and anti-anything else.

Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? Yes, as long as the baby is not born or close to being born. I noticed that this is pretty much the only one being contested, but i think that if a woman tries to get an abortion because she didn't use protection, it broke, she was raped, she was careless, whatever the case, and she is denied then that child will probably have a very bad life anyway. Putting it up for adoption is not a cure-all. First of all, there are a lot more children up for adoption than there are parents willing to take them. If the child gets adopted, that's great but there's a chance that if/when the child finds out they are adopted, they <try to find the birth parents/run away/get depressed/_______>. If it doesn't, it usually ends up going from group home to group home or on the streets. I guess what i'm trying to say is that it's a ridiculously complex issue, and there's really no blanket answer a person could give that works out for everyone. Banning all abortions can cause women to try and do it themselves, can screw up the kids life, and be a horrible reminder for rape victims. Allowing abortions for all pretty much means the end of personal responsibility for some people as far as who they have sex with.

Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? Again, surprised this one is even coming up. Why the hell does it matter who other people sleep with? Besides, there is a very large GLBT shooting population nowadays.

Would you agree to halt the "War on Drugs", to leave others alone, even to ruin their lives with alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other substance -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? Although i'm against drug abuse, i think that the "War on Drugs" has much bigger problems. It's cost ungodly amounts of money with almost no results and i believe it's a big contribution to the crime rate in this country. If those drugs were legalized,
-it could clear out the prisons for people who actually should be in there
- it could drive down the prices significantly which would reduce the theft that junkies commit to get money for their fix
-it could allow for regulation of these drugs as far as safety.
-it could be a huge potential source of money for the government, both in terms of saving money previously used on ineffective programs like DARE and in tax revenue (regardless of how you feel about taxes, let's face it- the government sorely needs money.)
-it could eliminate the black market that has caused so many deaths. You hear about all these LEOs and innocents killed by drug dealers and smugglers, drug dealers having turf wars and all these other stupid losses of life. If drugs were legalized and regulated, that would pretty much disappear.
-(Might catch some heat for this one) It could reduce the stress level in this country. Have you ever seen an uptight stoner? Didn't think so. =P

Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns? I respect the rights of anyone regardless of race or national origin anyway, and i would hope all gunowners do but apparently that isn't the case.

4v50 Gary
February 16, 2004, 08:17 PM
darn if he didn't speak for a lot of us! :)

HunterGatherer
February 16, 2004, 09:23 PM
No deals. I think I'm just going to change my sig line to read: What Standing Wolf said!

confed sailor
February 16, 2004, 09:28 PM
amen to standing wolf

stevelyn
February 17, 2004, 10:00 AM
SoCalGeek mirrors my sentiments regarding the questions. However standing wolf is correct, rights aren't to be used as bargaining chips for other rights. They either exist on their own or they don't.
I'm keeping my guns. If you want them you are going to get handed the ammo at a sustained rate of fire.

labgrade
February 17, 2004, 11:11 AM
My right to have a gun is not dependent upon any of these other conditions.

It won't be bartered away by allowing these others.

Those who want to remove the 2nd won't be swayed by the allowance of the others - they've their own agenda - & that is to remove the private ownership of firearms.

Simple as that & no compromise will be acceptable to them.

The private ownership battle will be fought on that premise alone - you either have the right, or you don't, regardless of any other side-issues, & it's not something to be bartered away in a give & take-thing.

Don't EVER be fooled by that argument.

The right exists, or it doesn't!

Far as the rest of the list = I could care less. Everyone gets to choose what god they believe in or not, everyone gets to choose their own sexuality - yada, but I've a real sticking point at the abortion issue, beyond the 50% "man's claim" to what happens.

Our very first premise forming this country was "Life, liberty & the .... "

Without life, there's nothing left to defend.

I believe that a human IS, at the moment of conception, & if you abort a fetus, you are killing a human being.

One thing that THR defends is the right to self defence & would not an abortion deprive that most defenseless human from his/her right to self defense, & that, from its own parents?

Anything else likely is a matter of PMs & beyond THR's objectives .....

Jay Kominek
February 17, 2004, 11:12 AM
However, when I read the list of things I would supposedly have to put up with, accept, whatever, it stikes me that 90% of the points are legal, regulated but available or tolerated or unregulated already.
Yes, but there are some political groups who'd be thrilled to make some or all of that stuff, illegal. Sort of like how owning guns is legal now but we can all point at any number of people who'd love to do something about it.

The idea isn't so much that these rights are actually tied to RKBA, but rather, political parties advance a particular set of rights/agendas, and the author is ending by pointing out that if RKBA is really the most important possible right to you, that there is a party which supports it, 100%, no compromises. He further suggests that if you can handle the fact that this party wants to support a whole bunch of other freedoms (that gun people are stereotyped as having problems with) that it would be better for you to support the party in question.

Samurai Penguin
February 17, 2004, 05:19 PM
It is true that rights are rights. It is true that each individual right stands on its own. It is true that the RKBA is the best way to ensure that the rest of our rights are not violated. "When reason fails, force prevails," dont'cha know.

The DFL wants to take away your RKBA. They're at least reasonably honest about that goal, if hypocritical(Paging Senator Feinstein...your CCW renewal is ready!). But what are we to make of GWB's supposed support of the AWB renewal? What should we think when the leader of a supposedly free country allows an abomination like the "patriot" act to become law? When are we going to learn that there's pretty much no difference (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe193-20021007-06.html) between the two...save one may be more circumspect about their eventual goals?

There are those people here who will vote for Their Party, no matter what. OK, so be it. But there are many more who are waiting to see what GWB does when the AWB sunsets. Will he renew, or will he not? :scrutiny:

If he does not renew...I may just decide to vote "R" for the first time in my life. If he does...well, I've seen a lot of posts, here and elsewhere, to the effect that there's a whole mess of people who will either vote "D" or stay home.

There is an alternative. (http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html) If GWB does renew the AWB, and you were planning to "throw your vote away" by either staying home or voting for socialism...think twice. Even if a Libertarian candidate doesn't win, a message will be sent. Staying home and not voting at all merely makes them think, "There's some more we've conditioned not to care! Yay!" Voting Libertarian, "wasted vote" or not, sends a simple message:

Yes, I noticed your "election"...and you're not fooling anyone. I'll vote for freedom above all else.

I just hope I'm not breaking any Campaign Finance Reform Laws with this post....:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "How much DO you want to keep your guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!