board77

I've always said I'm not a libertarian yet, just lean that way (heavily).

Gun freedom is the only thing that stands between us and complete tyranny. I choose to win on gun rights.

Ah they way I see it people were killing people long before guns were invented.

No guns we could simply go back to swords and seige machines and cows.

I'd rather lose on drugs than gun control. I don't care about getting illegal drugs at all, and I would care a LOT if we couldn't shoot deer every year. That's some really good meat.

Plus, lots more people would get killed in car/deer collisions if the deer population isn't kept in check. You guys can do what you like with the illegal drugs. I don't care either way compared to the hunt deer issue. And don't say there's always archery. It's much MUCH harder to hunt deer with bow and arrow. The shorter range makes a great deal of difference in the availability of targets.

Meril36 wrote:

Gun freedom is the only thing that stands between us and complete tyranny.

I’ve never been too sympathetic to this viewpoint myself. I don't have a problem with civilian gun ownership, but not for that reason. In my opinion, if it’s come to threatening to shoot or actually shooting agents of the Government, then it’s too late. In examples where people have used guns to stand up to the Government in the United States in recent times (Ruby ridge, Waco, ect) they’ve lost. If the machinery of Government is turned against a private citizen or even a group of private citizens, they cannot win by force. Empirical evidence also tends to bear the collorary out – many countries with very little gun freedom (eg: Japan) are not tyrannies.

Personally, I tend to think that freedoms are safeguarded by vigiliance, informed participation in the political process and working to change the Government from within rather than opposing it from without.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Meril36 wrote:

Gun freedom is the only thing that stands between us and complete tyranny.

I’ve never been too sympathetic to this viewpoint myself. I don't have a problem with civilian gun ownership, but not for that reason. In my opinion, if it’s come to threatening to shoot or actually shooting agents of the Government, then it’s too late. In examples where people have used guns to stand up to the Government in the United States in recent times (Ruby ridge, Waco, ect) they’ve lost. If the machinery of Government is turned against a private citizen or even a group of private citizens, they cannot win by force. Empirical evidence also tends to bear the collorary out – many countries with very little gun freedom (eg: Japan) are not tyrannies.

Personally, I tend to think that freedoms are safeguarded by vigiliance, informed participation in the political process and working to change the Government from within rather than opposing it from without.

Japan is an exception (for now). It's really their culture and the type of people they are that makes it generally peaceful there. On the flip side, their social mentality could give rise to a very terrible tyranny, accepted by most citizens, if the wrong people got into influential positions. It's just the way they are.

If you read the constitution of the United States, it isn't supposed to have a standing, "professional" army. Every two years there's supposed to be a process (vote, review, I can't quite remember) to determine whether the official army stays or goes. The Navy is maintained due to the need of maintenance on vessels, and in the modern day I assume the Airforce would be maintained as well - though neither of these special branches would technically be "active." Doesn't seem to be working that way, eh? Nice to know that your military exists illegally, right?

Basically what I'm saying is, "the machinery of government" as you put it, at least in the United States, shouldn't even exist. The civilian shouldn't have to worry about fighting their own army, because that army shouldn't even exist! And then we get into the whole matter of weapons-control. Even if there is an illegal, standing army, civilians should be just as well equipped as that army. I should be able to legally own stinger missiles, HE, or even a tank or fully-armed F-4 Phantom if I wanted to (and had the money).

Onizuka Eikichi wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Meril36 wrote:

Gun freedom is the only thing that stands between us and complete tyranny.

...many countries with very little gun freedom (eg: Japan) are not tyrannies.

Japan is an exception (for now). It's really their culture and the type of people they are that makes it generally peaceful there.

What about most of Europe? Nobody I know owns a gun. I hardly class Bertie Ahern as a despotic tyrant.

Since people abuse both guns and drugs this one is tough. I think I'd say drugs win. That way if we go back to using trebuchets as weapons the killer'll have to put some effort into killing besides just pulling a trigger from 50 feet away like a pussy. I hate guns, I hate drugs less.

TM, so what exactly would you want done on your chosen issue, and what would happen with your non-chosen issue?

yovargas wrote:

TM, so what exactly would you want done on your chosen issue, and what would happen with your non-chosen issue?

oh, there's more?! So you're asking what my stance on drugs is and since I'd allow them what would the "law" be? And what happen with guns?

Well it's a no-win no-win situation to begin with because if guns are made illegal people will find a way to get them, like people still buy drugs now.

But lets say drugs are now legal. You can purchase them when you turn 21 but it works the same way as alcohol, if you get caught driving under the inflence or in a public while "intoxicted" you'll be penalized with fines or possibly jail time depending on the severity of the crime.

As for guns being banned. We'll still have to deal with them being around and now honest people won't have anyway to protect themselves from those who will use guns illegally. But now that drugs are legal people won't care so much about guns But seriously that's tough, how could we live in a "gun free" nation when people will continue to break the law? I guess make the punishments harsher, but that's a mediocre solution. I'd have to turn that over in my mind for awhile.

This is what you were asking for right Yov?

Ok, here's a dilemna.

Your party (whatever party it is) gains the Legislative but loses the Executive, or your party gains the Executive but loses the Legislative. You have to choose between Congress (House and Senate) or the Presidency.

Because of the growth and development of the Imperial Presidency, I would have to go for taking the White House rather than the Congress. Of course, in real life, it would matter how much of a minority my party was in Congress. The president enjoys such wide powers - sadly growing every year - and Congress is rarely a match for him.

MariaHobbit wrote:

I'd rather lose on drugs than gun control. I don't care about getting illegal drugs at all, and I would care a LOT if we couldn't shoot deer every year. That's some really good meat.

Plus, lots more people would get killed in car/deer collisions if the deer population isn't kept in check. You guys can do what you like with the illegal drugs. I don't care either way compared to the hunt deer issue. And don't say there's always archery. It's much MUCH harder to hunt deer with bow and arrow. The shorter range makes a great deal of difference in the availability of targets.

Maria,

The best way to hunt deer is to strap some headlights onto the bullet.


Actually it would make no difference to me, we are losing both the drug war and the war to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Funny thing about criminals is they don't register their guns, only those of us that are law abiding citizens register them, and even then some of us don't.

I'd take the executive.

In my own country, it isn't an issue as whoever controls the legislature controls the executive by default.

I assume that CG's dilemma is based on the US style of legislative and executive? Unlike Australia's.

I think I'd first need to pick a party. As it stands right now, I belong to no party. Can I assume the two parties are the Liberal (bigger government, tax and spend, social programs) and the Conservative (smaller government, fiscally responsible, traditional). I think I'd rather the Conservative party and I'd pick to win the Congress, and lose the presidency. This way there might be more oversight on the budget, and the veto power of the president would serve to check the legislative.

My two parties are not necessarily the Dems and Reps.

Were I within the American political system and I'm not sure I would want to be despite its good intentions, I would have to pick the Presidency as the tone of the nation and its entire direction originates from that post.

The Presidency, because its the most useless job with too much power, a power that seems to be growing more and more with this administration.

I think that congress could pass laws and the courts could intrepret the laws. And it would be a moderate court and a moderate conservative congress.

I also see the presidency having far too much influence on the nation, especially now and especially too radical.

Initially I would have said I would take Congress, but after a little thought I'd actually take the Executive. The President controls and apoints a lot of important figures in our judicial system. Yeah Congress is there to check him, but as of late Congress doesn't seem to have the impact they once had.

so far its 6 President to 0 for Congress on the CG question.

I have one about children -- but do not want to usurp the current question before the right time.

When do I introduce that?

When the thread quietens down - which it might be doing soon.