Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › InterState meddling.
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) InterState meddling. (Read 1436 times)
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
InterState meddling.
Feb 17th, 2013 at 12:21am
Print Post  
Received an email from my "conservative" Republican brother. In it he foretold of pending gun control legislation that would ensure that I or my children would surely die a horrific death were any of us to set foot in Colorado.

What does the legislation include? A ban on magazines with a capacity higher than 15 (which would make a Glock 19 perfectly legal), institute universal background checks, require buyers to pay for the background check and ban concealed carry on college campuses.

After slightly glazing over the minor details of the bill, my brother then asked me to write HIS entire state legislature and senate to apparently beg them to change their mind.

I fear that the concept of representative government is completely lost on my sibling. I also should probably recommend that they move because if Colorado is so violent that you absolutely have to have a gun with a 16 round magazine, it's no place to raise children.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2052
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #1 - Feb 17th, 2013 at 12:35am
Print Post  
It's not the government's place to tell you how much ammo you can carry or what kind of gun you can buy or how.

The more the gun debate is in the spotlight, as some magic-wand fix, the more violence will come out of it. Instead, if all of these anti-gun or pro-heavy regulation retards applied their time with effective means of education, instead of cry to mommy government, the issues would improve considerably.

To lead by coercion, is great haste in solving a real problem. Great haste makes great waste.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bourgeois
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Counterrevolutionary
, Principle Foe of Dennis

Posts: 4105
Location: Montana
Joined: Apr 9th, 2011
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #2 - Feb 17th, 2013 at 1:38am
Print Post  
I found waldo!
  

"The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples."

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #3 - Feb 19th, 2013 at 11:54am
Print Post  
One of the biggest things I get tired of doing is arguing against gun control. I've gotten to the point now I just ask one question that they have no answer to, 'What background check would you impose that would've prevented Chris Dorner, or another one like him, from owning any guns'? Either they don't respond on the forums, look at me with a blank stare, or say the rhetoric of 'we have to do something' or 'are you saying we don't do anything'? Then the convo ventures off.

What we all knew was coming is a law that Missouri is trying to pass now will make all future "assault rifle" purchases illegal and any existing gun owners will have 90 days to turn in their guns (More can be found here: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/missouri-legislation-demands-owners-turn-in-gu...). What they fail to realize is all of those non-registered or 'illegal' guns won't be turned in. I'm waiting to hear reports about legal gun owners being killed while defending their right to have guns and crime on the rise because legal gun owners don't have their guns anymore.

The more I look at this, the more I think that folks who are making policies for the masses just don't get it. They say by banning these weapons, it will make it harder for the gun manufactures to sell them. Yeah and I'm sure the drug cartel was thinking the same exact thing when all drugs were made illegal too. I believe their way of thinking can be summed up by Dianna Feinstein, "When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in. thats just human nature" (In regards to Chris Dorner).

Said no criminal, ever. Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #4 - Feb 19th, 2013 at 1:02pm
Print Post  
Hold the mother loving phone...

Dianne Feinstein really said that? Quote:
"When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in. thats just human nature"


How is she even in public office?  That makes my brain hurt.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #5 - Feb 19th, 2013 at 1:43pm
Print Post  
keauxbi wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 1:02pm:
Dianne Feinstein really said that?

Yup, folks actually vote these people into office. I'm amazed at the ignorance of it all. Not only that, the Mayor of Baltimore actually spent $585,000 to a consulting firm in Philly to figure out how to save money. Furthermore, Baltimore City's Budget Director, Andrew Kleine, said that this was necessary as they didn't have the staff or expertise to do it themselves. Moreover, their core function, per Mr. Kleine, is to formulate & monitor the budget. You can figure out what that means.

Here is the article to Feinstein's brilliant theory - http://www.palookavillepost.com/2013/02/07/feinstein-and-boxer-ask-californians-...

Here is the article to Baltimore spending money to save it - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-16/news/bs-md-sun-investigates-city-con...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #6 - Feb 19th, 2013 at 4:38pm
Print Post  
I was once hired by a company that was headed towards bankruptcy to review it's distribution center's spending and find areas that money could be saved.  The culture at the company was to create a position (job) for someone to fill and receive benefits to determine how money could be saved.  What I found was that one retail store was shipping documents overnight to the corporate headquarters via UPS when both were located in the same city not 10 miles from each other.  Needless to say the company went bankrupt and it's that type of thinking that keeps people like DiFei in power.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #7 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 11:36am
Print Post  
Once agian I put on my pragmatic Libertarian hat in addressing the issue of gun control.

The 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental Right and that is the Right of Self-Defense from acts of aggression.

We have a Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression. period. Ownership of a firearm allows us to protect ourselves against the most serious acts of aggression where our person is threatened. It does not allow us to kill someone where our personal safety or life is not threatened. For example we can't shoot a 10 yo kid for simple shoplifting. The kid doesn't represent a threat to our person.

Basicaly we have a Right of Self-Defense but there are pragmatic limitions imposed upon our Freedom to Exercise a Right. Issues of "public safety" can create a pragmatic necessity to limit the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right. We cannot, for example, yell "fire" in a crowded theater even though we have an inalienable Right of Thought and Expression. Yelling "fire" creates panic which endangers the public safety.

Gun control advocates want background checks for firearm purchases but ignore the fact that the FBI instant background check system cannot be accessed by a private individual. Only FFL's and law enforcement can access this database. As a lawful gun owner I don't want to sell a firearm to someone prohibited from owning one but I can't run a background check. If I could I would. I don't require a mandate, I require access! A criminal won't run a background check even if the law mandates it but a law abiding gun owner would if they had access to the database. Information on the firearm is irrelevant to this check because it relates to the person and not the firearm. The seller wants to know that the person they're selling the firearm to isn't prohibited from buying the firearm.

At the same as a buyer of a firearm I want to ensure that the firearm isn't stolen. I want access to a database of stolen firearms so that I can verify that it's not a stolen firearm that would make me a criminal if I buy it (possession of stolen goods is a crime). If I had access to that database then I'd use it. I don't need a mandate from government that a criminal wouldn't use anyway.

Next is the fact that if I limit my ownership and possession to my own home or on other private property with the consent of the owner I don't endanger anyone so an issue of "public safety" does not exist. There isn't a pragmatic necessity for government to know what firearms I own and possess which are never taken into public places where they could create an issue of public safety.

Taking a firearm into the public does present a public safety issue though. I don't have a problem with a person having a license and registering their firearms if they will be taking out into public places. We already have those laws similiar to this related to CCW's but I would expand that to cover any carrying of a firearm into the public. Provisions need to exist where a person can transport a firearm from private property to private property where they don't require a license or registration. I would also address this with hunting licenses as well because I see no problem with identifying the firearm to be used for hunting but it doesn't necessarily mean that firearm belongs to the person in either case. They could be borrowed from someone else.

One more point, if a CCW type license and firearm registration is issued in one state it should be valid in all states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. A CCW is a State Record and the Constitution requires other States to give Full Faith and Credit to Records from other States. We need a federal law that protects our Right to carry a weapon in public across state lines. We "have the license and the firearm is registered" and that should be acceptable for all of the States.

There are many of the gun control arguments that fail to address the Right of Self-Defense and that aren't based upon a pragmatic necessity related to "public safety" and those need to be rejected. We can allow some limitations to our Freedom the Exercise our Right of Self-Defense so long as they are based upon a pragmatic necessity to protect the "public safety" as that is a ligitimate reason for the limitation.

Of note many of the proposals being made by gun control advocates are unconstitutional. The government cannot make the possession of legally purchased item a criminal offense as that is the imposition of ex post facto criminal law which is prohibited by Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution.

Colorado's proposed law, for example, exempts all previously purchased large capacity magazines from being confiscated or being illegal to own. New York, on the other hand has proposed that large capacity magazines that were legally purchased will become illegal to own and that violates the US Constitution.

On one final note the claims that this is about possible confiscation of firearms in the future is a conspiracy theory. The US Constitution prohibits it both in Article I Section 10 as well as in the 2nd Amendment. The "gun nuts" as well as the "gun control freaks" are really nothing but "nuts and freaks."
« Last Edit: Feb 21st, 2013 at 5:22am by Shiva_TD »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #8 - Feb 20th, 2013 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
The heart of the issue that I take offense to has nothing to do with gun control.  I think it's stupid and reckless for my brother to ask people who are not residents of his state to lobby his state legislature.  There are 5 million Coloradoans and 310 million Non-Coloradoans.  If every American did what he asked a small minority (calling it a small minority is laughable, he asked 5 people) to do would in effect drown out the voice of Coloradoans.  The right to self government ([r]epublicanism) was what the revolution was fought over and is what we should be fighting against the federal government for.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CmdrSlander
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 14
Location: Disputed Western Missouri
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2013
Re: InterState meddling.
Reply #9 - Feb 24th, 2013 at 12:39am
Print Post  
A) Wanting a 30 round magazine does not mean you would necessarily feel less safe than if you had a 15 rounder, all having a 30 rounder does is make you more prepared which is a good thing, and we the people have every right to a magazine of whatever capacity we want because the gun is mine, the mag is mine, therefore the decision to install the mag into the gun is mine and no one else's... it's called property rights, mon frere.

B) I sent messages to CO legislators telling them I would not support their state with my tourism or interstate commerce if such legislation was passed, that isn't meddling, that's me using my economic power as a free person to affect change and is perfectly ethical and lawful.

C) Colorado's political makeup is very similar to our nation's political makeup and it is the Democrat's test case for national gun control (to the extent that Biden called Dem. legislators to give the aid and advice) which all Libertarians should strongly oppose. On this issue, if Colorado goes, so goes the nation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › InterState meddling.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy