Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun! (Read 298 times)
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #10 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 1:54pm
Print Post  
on the upside, It's resulted in sales of more paper cups and candles.

And it's almost a given that it's caused a few more gungoons to start thinking of how to get their names in the news!

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #11 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 2:04pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 1:54pm:
on the upside, It's resulted in sales of more paper cups and candles.

And it's almost a given that it's caused a few more gungoons to start thinking of how to get their names in the news!

He was preaching atheism, which means Satan probably told him to do it. Real atheists don't proselytize.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #12 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 2:47pm
Print Post  
Quote:
BTW, as I'm sure you know modern assault rifles are capable of fully automatic fire, and that's not what he bought or used.
I know it's a common debate point to say that anti-gunner don't know what the term "assault rifle" really means.  Yes, they are silly and ignorant for not knowing that.  But I don't get defensive about the term because in a libertarian system, it would be irrelevant that a civilian AR-15 has no capability for automatic fire.  Because in a libertarian system, civilians would have their natural right to own automatic rifles respected just as much as their right to own flintlock rifles.

When we say "Oh, oh.  It's NOT an assault rifle because it isn't automatic!" we tacitly concede that automatic weapons should be banned for civilian ownership.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #13 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:02pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 2:47pm:
I know it's a common debate point to say that anti-gunner don't know what the term "assault rifle" really means.  Yes, they are silly and ignorant for not knowing that.  But I don't get defensive about the term because in a libertarian system, it would be irrelevant that a civilian AR-15 has no capability for automatic fire.  Because in a libertarian system, civilians would have their natural right to own automatic rifles respected just as much as their right to own flintlock rifles.




I think the point is that modern AR-15 weapons are too dangerous for people to be able to own and they should be outlawed. I think it's quite legitimate to claim that because they are close enough to full automatic that there isn't much difference in the amount of people killing the can accomplish.

That's the general opinion of the people who want to outlaw them anyway, and I'm with them on it. I would outlaw semi-automatic rifles but perhaps except shotguns due to the limit of five or six rounds. And they are a quite sensible gun for wing shooting.

Those sort of weapons have no place in game hunting. And I would go further and say that those people who want to own AR-15 type rifles are suspect of being mentally deranged to begin with. It's a military purpose that's been thrown in with gun ownership and it's a perversion of the sport of shooting.

Something to be ignored if you choose, except that some reasonable solution is going to have to be found eventually. And the escalation in the violence and the escalation in the shooters' effectiveness is bringing it all home now.

The solution that will be found to protect the lives of innocent people could be a reasonable approach such as I suggest and it wouldn't do any shooting enthusiast any harm at all. Probably the alternative would be something like Australia's solution.

In any case, it's years away and many more thousands of dead Americans. Suffer the little children!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 789
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #14 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:19pm
Print Post  
How do you propose getting the five million privately owned AR 15's out of the hands of their owners?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #15 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:54pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:19pm:
How do you propose getting the five million privately owned AR 15's out of the hands of their owners?


Good point!

I would resort to prying them out of their cold dead hands. But I think most of them would give them up peacefully. After all, none of them own guns to use on animals that can shoot back. If they own an AR-15 type rifle then they are militarized young men mostly that haven't grown in to the real sport of shooting.

Nobody in their right mind would go to a range and blaze away on semi-auto wasting hundreds of rounds. And by right mind I mean, not mentally retarded but not of their full grown up capacity.  Or, was incapable of growing out of the fascination of using a military type rifle to shoot at human silouette targets for the imaginary thrill of it being the real thing.

Just picture it burnsred, if in fact aren't doing it yourself? Are you?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #16 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:56pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 2:47pm:
I know it's a common debate point to say that anti-gunner don't know what the term "assault rifle" really means.  Yes, they are silly and ignorant for not knowing that.  But I don't get defensive about the term because in a libertarian system, it would be irrelevant that a civilian AR-15 has no capability for automatic fire.  Because in a libertarian system, civilians would have their natural right to own automatic rifles respected just as much as their right to own flintlock rifles.
You don't think people in America have that right? That it's a privilege the Sovereign might grant to certain people under certain circumstances of which the Sovereign approves (like protecting the Sovereign and his friends and family and cronies) to keep and bear modern firearms?

I don't find any granted power in the Constitution for denying anyone the same "privilege"- Why is it not called a right?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #17 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:57pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:02pm:
I think the point is that modern AR-15 weapons are too dangerous for people to be able to own and they should be outlawed.
There really must be something wrong with your thought processes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22054
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #18 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:58pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:54pm:
Good point!

I would resort to prying them out of their cold dead hands.
Kill anyone who doesn't turn in their guns? That didn't even work in the Soviet Union.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5069
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Reply #19 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 4:06pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 3:58pm:
Kill anyone who doesn't turn in their guns? That didn't even work in the Soviet Union.


If they serously resisted turning them in then that would lead to the only remedy. However,  I think that 99.999% of them would give up their semi-autos at least when the cops showed theirs. So there would be say no more than a few thousand dead holdouts. .001% of 300 million is about 3000 give or take.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Texas Mass Shooter Wasn't Supposed to Be Carrying a Gun!
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy