AaronP's Political Ideology

[ndee]

<< Drugs target neighborhoods, families, and children and there is no "Safe" way to use drugs. >>


ROTFLMAOPIMP

You have to make a diffrence between "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs. Never heard of a family who got teared up cuz the kid smoked a Joint or something, although I heard of families who are teared up, cuz the kid shot somebody accidentally with a shot-gun.....

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< So this is all about how public shootouts will be better than one sided massacres, and that citizens taking the law into their own hands, firing weapons in public to "defend" is actually a good thing?

I can see situations where this could be a good thing... But I can also see the right or the possibility of such an event occuring being abused in far more situations than it helps... >>



Defending yourself is NOT taking the law into your own hands. There is NO constitutional right to guaranteed safety, nor are the police obligated to protect each individual from harm. Think I'm kidding? Try suing the police for negligence next time you're a victim of a crime.

Your personal safety is your responsibility. This includes defending yourself from attack. Taking the law into your own hands would be punishing a criminal for a crime after the fact, not defending yourself during the attack.

It's this kind of convoluted thinking that has led to a near total ban of self defense in England.

Firing weapons against a spree shooter IS a good thing. What would you have victims do, beg for mercy? Sing them a song?

The spree shooter created the danger. The victims shooting back creates no more danger than already existed, for they are only targeting someone who, left alone, will harm far more people than the victims will. >>


To a certain extent, defending yourself IS your own personal responsibility. If you're one to frequent dark alleys alone with no protection in bad neighborhoods, you can't expect the police to save you everytime. But thats within reason... However if everyone who dines at a certain KFC has to each carry a gun - well, then the police aren't doing their job in a neighborhood.
I for one am happy to pay my taxes, because one of the benefits I believe I reap from paying taxes is an increase in my personl safety - something paranoid libertairans have a hard time believing...

In any case, isn't this point moot because even a valid handgun ownership license you're still not allowed to carry it around?

 

[Triumph]

I agree with pretty much everything AaronP has said. Great post!

 

[Novgrod]

In order to abandon libertarianism, you have to abandon the Constitution as Jefferson, Madison, and everybody but Hamilton intended it.

I for one am happy to pay my taxes, because one of the benefits I believe I reap from paying taxes is an increase in my personl safety - something paranoid libertairans have a hard time believing...

If you mean state/local taxes, then maybe. Fed taxes go to social programs (alias wealth redistribution), the military (which vaguely increases your security i suppose) and then to the chumps who run the government. "Place men" as the Founders would have called them.

 

[Amused]

<< To a certain extent, defending yourself IS your own personal responsibility. If you're one to frequent dark alleys alone with no protection in bad neighborhoods, you can't expect the police to save you everytime. But thats within reason... However if everyone who dines at a certain KFC has to each carry a gun - well, then the police aren't doing their job in a neighborhood.
I for one am happy to pay my taxes, because one of the benefits I believe I reap from paying taxes is an increase in my personl safety - something paranoid libertairans have a hard time believing...

In any case, isn't this point moot because even a valid handgun ownership license you're still not allowed to carry it around? >>



Not in this nasty-ass state. But I did in GA, SC and NC when I lived down south. Many states have concealed carry on demand licensing with common sense restrictions on where and how to carry. One state allows any law abiding citizen to carry a weapon without a carry permit; Vermont (curiously, Vermont also has one of the lowest crime rates in the country).

Yes, the police add an element of safety. I don't have a hard time believing that. However, they cannot protect me if a criminal decides to not be deterred by their mere existence.

BTW, I don't know many, if any libertarians who are against local police agencies. I believe you may have libertarianism confused with anarchy. They are very different.

 

[Kilgor]

<< I'm at UC Davis right now, but I was born and raised in Oakland. I like to think of the bay area being normal and everywhere else in the US being 'conservative backwater red-necks.' Oh well, i guess i'm a freak. Do you hardcore christian republicans think you're going to heaven? killing afgan people is okay because they're 'bad.'? >>



You?re not a freak just a misinformed college kid who has no idea what the real world is like. It seems the left has brainwashed you since you were a child. Yes killing people in Afghanistan is bad, but in the real world people die. It?s a case of who would you rather see dying, a few unfortunate Afghans or a few Americans. What you don?t seem to realize is that some bad people in this world don?t think you should be able to sit in your dorm room smoke pot and call people rednecks. So while you?re tiptoeing around in a state of utopian bliss, be assured there are other Americans willing to fight for you and your ilk so you can continue to call us Right wing religious rednecks.