What's next, squirt guns? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAiQ5zFgA4&mode=related&search=

What kind of gun shall we ban next, squirt guns? How about cap guns?

>>79
Actually it is naive to think 1 speach censorred, or one liberty denied here and there will not lead to the state having the power to corrupt the democratic process. Democracy is dependant on the free press and free speech. Everyone who knows anyrthing about modern politics knows this.

In fact the first thing a person who wanted to destroy a democracy would do is attack freedom of speech. The weimar republic failed that way and Stalin's regime arose through political oppression.

>>80
well, shouldnt you clean your own plate before discussing others? i have never heard a demand here that present poland or czeck republic should be sanctioned because they have outlawed communism, which means that it is illegal in these countries to disagree with capitalism.

>>72
"I didn't say most gun owners were criminals, I said most have them  to use as weapons against other people, which includes self defense against criminals."

That doesn't mean that a gun's only use or purpose is to kill people.  Anyway, I'm still not so sure that's true.  There are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of hunters out there who don't use the gun to kill people.  Top those up with all the other sports shooters, and you have quite a sizable sum. 

"I don't pick and choose.  I'm a libertarian - and I argue against all those things that you listed."

"So you think it should be allowed to yell bomb in a public airport, fire in a public movie theater, or print a detailed article about how to overthrow the US government and terrorize the people in a newspaper? those are speech and press control."

I think speech and press control of any kind should be non-existant on private property.  The only exceptions to this rule would be some situation in which fraud or force is directly harming an individual. 

"The difference between libertarians and anarchists is anarchists say there should be no laws while Libertarians say that anything that doesn't hurt others should be legal. I think no gun control affects people more negatively that some sensible gun control, in the same way I think about speech or press control."

First of all, I don't see a shred of proof that 'sensible gun control' works.  Until you proove as much, you have no case at all.  Even in that situation, I still say if you feel unsafe around other people with guns, buy a gun yourself, and get over your irrational gun-phobia.

>>79
"there are laws limiting free speech."

And those laws should be removed.

"you are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of libertarianism, you think in absolutes when the world is far more complicated then your simplistic ideologies."

Explain.  Give examples.

"you are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of libertarianism"

You are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of critics of libertarianism.  Not all libertarians are purist libertarians.  There was even a libertarian who ran last election who supported socialized health care.  Libertarians vary from person to person,  and some are more moderate or more extreme than others, just like those of the other parties.  Believe it or not, there are democrats who are pro-life.  There are republicans who are anti-gun.  Your attitude that everyone from a given party thinks the same is full of shit.

>>85

No shit, I never said every libertarian thinks the same, I AM a libertarian, a left-libertarian. I was addressing the libertarians here, which do all seem to think pretty much the same, hardcore right-libertarians.

>>83
"I think speech and press control of any kind should be non-existant on private property.  The only exceptions to this rule would be some situation in which fraud or force is directly harming an individual. "

Well ok then, I agree, and AFAIK that is how it is currently.

>>83
"First of all, I don't see a shred of proof that 'sensible gun control' works.  Until you proove as much, you have no case at all.  Even in that situation, I still say if you feel unsafe around other people with guns, buy a gun yourself, and get over your irrational gun-phobia."

"We also collected data on whether owners of concealed handguns are more likely to use them in committing violent crimes. The rarity of these incidents is reflected in Florida's statistics: More than 300,000 concealed- handgun licenses were issued between October 1, 1987 and December 31, 1945, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed in this period. And none of these resulted in fatalities. That's of 1% misuse rate for permitted pistols in an eight year period or LESS than 1/1000 of 1% misuse rate per year."
From: http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

Concealed handguns licenses reduce crime, and is sensible. So is not issuing firearms to those with a criminal record or a history of mental illness, which I think we can agree on is a good idea.

I don't have gun-phobia, painting all opponents as afraid of guns is silly. I have guns-in-the-hands-of-criminals-or-crazy-people-phobia, and whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into their hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for.

>>84
"Explain.  Give examples."

You just gave one, absolute free speech and press. During the civil war northern newspapers published forged documents claiming them to be signed by Lincoln and posted details about the northern army and in general undermined the war effort. Lincoln suppressed these newspapers. This is a case where limiting free press was necessary and beneficial. And no, I don't think modern day suppression of civil liberties is justifiable, quite the opposite, Bush is using a small perpetual war to control people, and shit like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act are absolute shit and need to be repealed. And as I've said numerous times, yelling bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded public place should be allowed to be suppressed. I am for very limited forms of limiting civil liberties like the ones I just stated.

>>86

"Well ok then, I agree, and AFAIK that is how it is currently."

No, it isn't how it is currently.  Or, not in effect, anyway.  The FCC fines private radio broadcasters for saying dirty words over the air.  The radio is censored, for example.  If the fascists get their way, they have declared their intentions to go after cable as well with the FCC.  There are far more infringements of the 1st amendment present than you realize.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3644072958341565007&q=penn+and+teller+alien+abduction&hl=en)

"We also collected data on whether owners of concealed handguns are more likely to use them in committing violent crimes. The rarity of these incidents is reflected in Florida's statistics: More than 300,000 concealed- handgun licenses were issued between October 1, 1987 and December 31, 1945, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed in this period. And none of these resulted in fatalities. That's of 1% misuse rate for permitted pistols in an eight year period or LESS than 1/1000 of 1% misuse rate per year."
From: http://www.largo.org/Lott.html";

In what way does that proove 'sensible gun control' works? To clarify things, just what do you mean when you say 'sensible gun control'?  That looked like a pro-gun rights page anyway.  John Lott is a pro-gun rights author, FYI. 

"Concealed handguns licenses reduce crime, and is sensible. So is not issuing firearms to those with a criminal record or a history of mental illness, which I think we can agree on is a good idea."

Concealed carry is good, yep.  As for background checks? You won't find a whole lot of opposition from most gun rights advocates there.  I don't see what your problem is.  When you say 'sensible gun control' most gun rights advocates take that to mean:  "national gun registration, national gun control laws, ban high capacity magazines, ban semi-automatic weapons, ban pump action shotguns, ban gun shows, ban saturday night specials, ban .50 caliber rifles, mandatory trigger locks (that you must pay for), ammunition bans, etc etc."

And rightly so.. most of the democratic senators who call themselves advocates of 'sensible gun control laws' have all or much of the above on their legislative agenda/voting history.  You would be better served labelling yourself as a gun rights advocate than as an advocate of 'sensible gun control laws.'

"I don't have gun-phobia, painting all opponents as afraid of guns is silly. I have guns-in-the-hands-of-criminals-or-crazy-people-phobia, and whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into their hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for."

Good.  See above.

We also have Keroack deciding what women can do. But maybe only democrats can be tagged with the beloved meme "fascist".

>>88
I never said dems only.  I'm happy to critisize the republicans when they start pissing on our liberties as well.

"In what way does that proove 'sensible gun control' works? To clarify things, just what do you mean when you say 'sensible gun control'?"

I mean what I said later: "whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into [criminal's or crazy people's] hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for." I wasn't aware that many democratic senators called crazy gun control laws sensible. I think we have pretty much the same views. I haven't done a ton of research into gun control laws or the history of gun control in America, I just take things on a case by case basis. If I read about a new bill that would infringe upon lawful gun owners then I am against it, and if it would take them away solely or nearly so from criminals ten I am for it. I don't have a detailed agenda on what I consider sensible gun control, basically.

But yeah, I think we are both arguing from the same side.

bump because it is a relevant topic.