The case against guns

[MrJonno]

Libertarianism is the most evil ideology ever invented, at least fascism and communism at least pretend to want to help the majority of people. Libertarianism basically wants must of humanity dead.

'Freedom' and 'liberty' in themselves are not something to worship but can only be judged on how they help in accessing things that do matter like food, medical care.

Human beings survive like ants because they are part of a larger community, without that community they die and have nothing (including 'freedom'). Libertarianism at its heart things society is optional, a 'freedom' to choose when in fact without it most of us are dead

[Collector1337]

"Libertarianism is 'evil?'"

Really? Please tell me you can't be that stupid.

Isn't the black and white thinking of "good" and "evil" the kind of simplicity believers try to boil everything down to? Nice work.

[Seth]

What the second amendment enthusiasts continuously fail to appreciate is that the wording meant one thing when formulated, and that meaning is now lost and gone as a result of historical changes.

Sez who? Our Supreme Court utterly disagrees with you as well.

When written, bearing arms meant having a primitive one shot, slow loading tool that was handy to the government because it could be used in war.

No it didn't. No mention was made of black-powder single-shot muskets. The word is "arms." That's a category, not a class, and it's not restricted to only those arms in existence at the time. The Founders knew full well that technology advances so they were careful to be as broad as possible in protecting the right. You claim, as usual, has absolutely no foundation in fact.

It did not mean carrying a hidden multishot weapon on civilian streets where it could be pulled out for murder.

Actually, it did, except for self defense, not murder.

Pistols
French flintlock pistol circa 1790-1795
Flintlock firing system of a French naval gun.

Flintlock pistols were used as self-defense weapons and as a military arm. Their effective range was short, and they were frequently used as an adjunct to a sword or cutlass. Pistols were usually smoothbore although some rifled pistols were produced.

Flintlock pistols came in a variety of sizes and styles which often overlap and are not well defined, many of the names we use having been applied by collectors and dealers long after the pistols were obsolete. The smallest were less than 6 inches long (15 cm) and the largest were over 20 inches (50 cm). From around the beginning of the 1700s the larger pistols got shorter, so that by the late 1700s the largest would be more like 16 inches long (40 cm). The smallest would fit into a typical pocket or a hand warming muff and could easily be carried by women. The largest sizes would be carried in holsters across a horse's back just ahead of the saddle. In-between sizes included the coat pocket pistol, or coat pistol, which would fit into a large pocket, the coach pistol, meant to be carried on or under the seat of a coach in a bag or box, and belt pistols, sometimes equipped with a hook designed to slip over a belt or waistband. Larger pistols were called horse pistols. Arguably the most elegant of the pistol designs was the Queen Anne pistol, which was made in all sizes. Probably the high point of the mechanical development of the flintlock pistol was the British duelling pistol; it was highly reliable, water resistant and accurate. External decoration was minimal but craftsmanship was evident, and the internal works were often finished to a higher degree of craftsmanship than the exterior. Dueling pistols were the size of the horse pistols of the late 1700s, around 16 inches long (40 cm) and were usually sold in pairs along with accessories in a wooden case with compartments for each piece.

Multishot flintlock weapons
Multiple barrels
A three barrel flintlock pistol.

Because of the time needed to reload (even experts needed 15 seconds to reload a smooth-bore, muzzle-loading musket[8]), flintlocks were sometimes produced with two, three, four or more barrels for multiple shots. These designs tended to be costly to make and were often unreliable and dangerous. While weapons like double barreled shotguns were reasonably safe, weapons like the pepperbox revolver would sometimes fire all barrels simultaneously, or would sometimes just explode in the user's hand. It was often less expensive, safer, and more reliable to carry several single-shot weapons instead.

Source: Wikipedia

Today, that is what handguns are used for. They have no purpose except killing people, and not in war. They are close to useless as weapons of war, compared to modern war arsenals.

Which doesn't explain (as you NEVER do) why our combat troops are all issued 9mm M9 Beretta and M11 Sig handguns, does it?

It is hard to imagine the founding fathers accepting murder tools under the second amendment.

It's only hard for ignorant pinheaded morons who can't even be bothered to check the historical record, where it's perfectly obvious that the Founding Fathers not only "accepted" handguns as protected under the 2nd Amendment, many of them CARRIED handguns themselves.

You really are making yourself look like an ass you know.

[Seth]

"Libertarianism is 'evil?'"

Really? Please tell me you can't be that stupid.

I assume that's a sarcastic rhetorical question, because the answer is "yes, he can be."

Isn't the black and white thinking of "good" and "evil" the kind of simplicity believers try to boil everything down to? Nice work.

Jonno would be a troll except he really believes his idiocy, so you can't really say he's being deliberately provocative.

Those like him loathe Libertarianism because a) they doesn't actually know what it is; and b) they hates the idea that everybody else might not labor on their behalf so they can sit on their asses and post here all the time without having to work. In other words, a typical Socialist dependent class prole.

[MrJonno]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

[Collector1337]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

I wish you dead? How so?

[MrJonno]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

I wish you dead? How so?

The only way 99.9% of humanity can survive is by strict controls and regulations on their behaviour, libertarianism wants to get of this so people can be 'free' to starve or be exploited. Fascism and communism attacked minorities and claimed to benefit majorities but libertarianism has nothing but contempt for most of humanity. It's the enemy of anyone who isn't not stupidly rich and has their own private island

[Coito ergo sum]

Libertarianism is the most evil ideology ever invented, at least fascism and communism at least pretend to want to help the majority of people. Libertarianism basically wants must of humanity dead.

'Freedom' and 'liberty' in themselves are not something to worship but can only be judged on how they help in accessing things that do matter like food, medical care.

Human beings survive like ants because they are part of a larger community, without that community they die and have nothing (including 'freedom'). Libertarianism at its heart things society is optional, a 'freedom' to choose when in fact without it most of us are dead

This is insane.

Libertarianism, the set of political philosophies which uphold human liberty as a high or the highest political end, is the most evil ideology invented? Madness. You place fascism and communism, under which the individual does not even have the right to breathe air without the permission of the state, and under which the individual is a slave to the state, above the philosophy that humans have certain liberties that the State ought not trample?

[Coito ergo sum]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

You seem to be of the belief that libertarianism posits an end to society. It doesn't.

[MrJonno]

Libertarianism, the set of political philosophies which uphold human liberty as a high or the highest political end, is the most evil ideology invented

Which is why it is so fundamentally wrong, 'liberty' is not a end point its an enabler in some circumstances to human happiness.

Human happiness is really the highest political end, if freedom in some circumstances helps then great but there is nothing good in freedom in itself

I don't care how 'free' I am to choose which private hospital to go to if I can't afford to go to any, I don't care about how free I am to choose where to work if I have no employee rights and wherever I go I will be treated appalling and struggle to survive. I don't care how free I am to own a gun if my neighbour is free to own one as well and use it on me.

The worship of anything is wrong and that includes 'freedom', its can be a nice luxury to have once you have more important things sorted out like food and shelter

[Coito ergo sum]

Libertarianism, the set of political philosophies which uphold human liberty as a high or the highest political end, is the most evil ideology invented

Which is why it is so fundamentally wrong, 'liberty' is not a end point its an enabler in some circumstances to human happiness.

Arguably, yes, and many libertarians are consquentialists, as they have concluded or they take the position that libertarianism is the best available mechanism to maximize human happiness, which is why it is regarded by them as a high political end.

Human happiness is really the highest political end,

And, if someone believes that libertarianism maximizes human happiness, or has the best chance of doing so as compared to socialism, communism, fascism, or other ideologies, then they would advance libertarianism and human liberty as the highest political end -- the political end being the means to the ultimate end of human happiness.

if freedom in some circumstances helps then great but there is nothing good in freedom in itself

Here people can and do differ with you. To lack freedom is in many ways a diminution of the human condition as much as to lack housing. People go nuts if they're locked away and deprived of all freedom.

I don't care how 'free' I am to choose which private hospital to go to if I can't afford to go to any, I don't care about how free I am to choose where to work if I have no employee rights and wherever I go I will be treated appalling and struggle to survive. I don't care how free I am to own a gun if my neighbour is free to own one as well and use it on me.

The worship of anything is wrong and that includes 'freedom', its can be a nice luxury to have once you have more important things sorted out like food and shelter

What if the system of libertarian medical care provided better and more prevalent medical care to a greater percentage of the people, resulting an overall happier society?

[MrJonno]

Here people can and do differ with you. To lack freedom is in many ways a diminution of the human condition as much as to lack housing. People go nuts if they're locked away and deprived of all freedom.

Not sure there is that much evidence of that, most people who spend a long time in jail don't go nuts (unless put in solitary confinement). In fact quite possibly some people prefer it. Even in the worst concentration camps most people didnt go mad until hunger drove them that way, even knowing they could be murdered at any point they adapted

You may believe that unrestricted freedom is the best way to human happiness, which is wrong but not evil, but the belief of freedom above all else regardless of the cost to your fellow man is wrong and at least one loon on this forum takes that attitude

[Coito ergo sum]

Here people can and do differ with you. To lack freedom is in many ways a diminution of the human condition as much as to lack housing. People go nuts if they're locked away and deprived of all freedom.

Not sure there is that much evidence of that, most people who spend a long time in jail don't go nuts (unless put in solitary confinement). In fact quite possibly some people prefer it. Even in the worst concentration camps most people didnt go mad until hunger drove them that way, even knowing they could be murdered at any point they adapted

You may believe that unrestricted freedom is the best way to human happiness, which is wrong but not evil, but the belief of freedom above all else regardless of the cost to your fellow man is wrong and at least one loon on this forum takes that attitude

Who said "unrestricted" freedom? This is the straw man you play time and time again. Even libertarians generally are not anarchists.

There is not much evidence that lacking freedom is a diminution of the human condition? That must be why people crave going to jail, where they get their three hot meals and a cot and have nothing to worry about in terms of survival, and they are supplied with a modicum of entertainment. That would be the best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it? Happiness achieved through maximum government intervention.

[MrJonno]

There is not much evidence that lacking freedom is a diminution of the human condition? That must be why people crave going to jail, where they get their three hot meals and a cot and have nothing to worry about in terms of survival, and they are supplied with a modicum of entertainment. That would be the best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it? Happiness achieved through maximum government intervention.

I don't think locking someone up in prison cheers most people up but you said loss of freedom sent then mad which simply isnt true, there is definitely a proportion of people in prison who are quite happy to be there for the reasons you mentioned. You can survive a loss of freedom you can't survive a loss of food or medical care

As for libertarian anarchists types I have one particular person in mind who is definitely of that nature, more often than not freedom can increase human happiness but where it doesnt there is absolutely nothing morally wrong in restricting it

[Seth]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

See, I told you he didn't have a clue about Libertarianism.

You know, Jonno, if you ASK people to help you in a polite manner respectful of the labor that they will have to dedicate to your maintenance, you'd be surprised at how charitable and generous people, explicitly including Libertarians can be.

The Libertarian objection to authoritarian socialist states is not that those in need of assistance should be left to die, it's merely a philosophical objection to being enslaved by the political minions of the dependent class against our will.

I'm a very generous Libertarian. I've probably spent $50,000 in the last two years, and at least $275,000 in the last 20 years to actively support two different families in need who are my friends, and who are grateful for my assistance. In doing so I've helped keep them OFF the government welfare rolls, which they don't want to be on either. I do it because I care about them, not because I want them to suffer.

You, however, are another thing altogether.

When greedy dependent fucks think they can FORCE me to support them for no better reason than they want to be supported, they have another think coming, because I WILL NOT give them a thin dime and they can starve in the street for all I care.

I get to decide who is worthy of my labor and property, not you, not anybody else.

If you want my help, then politely and humbly ask me for it and I'll consider your request.

Try and use the thuggish force of the government to take what I've labored for from me for your personal benefit without my consent and I'll fight to prevent it.

You're entitled to NOTHING. You may however ask for charity if you do so nicely.