Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[GermanyChris]

What's the issue with Anarchists?

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

What's the issue with Anarchists?

post-libertarianism is here

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

What's the issue with Anarchists?

Many of the people in .us who advocate for anarchism tend to be spoiled little jerks, some of whom like to go around with scarves over their identities busting things up – cf. Seattle WTO protests of 1999. The biggest difference between Anarchists and Glibertarians is that the latter just tend to shout disembodied theory from behind their keyboards.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Many of the people in .us who advocate for anarchism tend to be spoiled little jerks, some of whom like to go around with scarves over their identities busting things up – cf. Seattle WTO protests of 1999. The biggest difference between Anarchists and Glibertarians is that the latter just tend to shout disembodied theory from behind their keyboards.

Many of the people in .us who advocate for liberalism tend to be spoiled little jerks.

Many of the people in .us who advocate for conservatism tend to be spoiled little jerks

Many of the people in .us who advocate for libertarianism tend to be spoiled little jerks

Many of the people in .us who advocate for socialism tend to be spoiled little jerks

There are times that things need busted up and people need to get their nose broken. There are times where we need moderation and hand shaking. There are times when we need conservatism. There is a time when we need liberality. There are times when we need socialism..

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by eric/

So the government should be able to dictate when and how people secure their home and possessions?

Why?

No. But I think they should dictate what happens if you fail to use common sense. If you leave your gun unsecured and your kid gets it and kills someone, you go to jail.

You have to the right to free speech but you have to temper that with common sense or you go to jail. Try screaming FIRE in a movie theater or stand in front of the white house and say you are going to kill the president. See how those go for you.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

There are times that things need busted up and people need to get their nose broken.

I'd start with the people who think breaking noses is some form of therapy.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'd start with the people who think breaking noses is some form of therapy.

Then you'd most likely be the fist to get your nose broken..

Violence is at necessary at times, or did you think Khadafi would just nicely step aside if we asked him real nice..

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Then you'd most likely be the fist to get your nose broken..

Violence is at necessary at times, or did you think Khadafi would just nicely step aside if we asked him real nice..

So you're equating me to Muammar Gaddafi?

That makes sense.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

So you're equating me to Muammar Gaddafi?

That makes sense.

Mahatma Qaddafi?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Mahatma Qaddafi?

Exactly!

Apparently I need to be violently assaulted in order to be taught that there are people in this world who'd violently assault me.

It's all very confusing.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

So you're equating me to Muammar Gaddafi?

That makes sense.

Nope,


Next intentionally obtuse thing you'd like to say?

[NightGeometry]

Ahh, so now I understand why Mahatma Ghandi was such a violent little scrote, and had to break a *lot* of noses to effect change. Cool.

I guess that's why the civil rights struggle in the UK (suffrage), and the US were violent on the part of those who wanted to change the system.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

Ahh, so now I understand why Mahatma Ghandi was such a violent little scrote, and had to break a *lot* of noses to effect change. Cool.

I guess that's why the civil rights struggle in the UK (suffrage), and the US were violent on the part of those who wanted to change the system.

I'm glad you understand now, If there is anything else I can do to further your comprehension just let me know

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by Sydde

"Libertarianism" is all over the map, there are even Libertarian Socialists, odd as that may sound. Some libertarians (sideways glance) hold the philosophy of "…because **** you, that's why!" which basically makes them anarchists.

Not sure where to start here."Libertarianism" refers to a small bunch of rightwing loons mostly in the U.S. they really have no political ideas other than as you say "**** you jack I'm alright".
The term libertarian is a synonym for anarchist and has been used that way for well over a hundred years (including in the U.S. until it was hi-jacked by the "Libertarians" in the early sixties.
"libertarian socialists" is a perfectly accurate term there is no conflict between libertarian and socialism.
Chomsky for instance when talking to the main stream media tends to refer to himself as a libertarian socialist but when talking to other anarchists calls himself an anarchist.He does this because he knows especially in the U.S. the vast majority of people have no idea what the term anarchism means.As far as the "**** you" philosophy goes nothing could be further from the anarchist movements ideas.

Originally Posted by Sydde

Ok then, how about "minarchists"?

"minarchists" "anarcho-capitalists" Rothbard,von Mises,Hayek,Rand etc belong to that group calling themselves "Libertarians" and are in no way connected to anarchism and are indeed extremely right wing.That's not to say they are a cohesive group some of them can't abide each other.

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

I guess that's why the civil rights struggle in the UK (suffrage), and the US were violent on the part of those who wanted to change the system.

I think there's a misunderstanding here between violence and damage to property,if you mean damage to property the women's suffrage movement in the U.K. (the general suffrage movement as well) involved large amounts of property damage including bombs and mass damage to commercial property.
Although Ghandi preached non-violence during the fight for Indian liberation he was a figurehead and others were obliged to use some violence although again the best weapons were mass resistance and property damage.
I think you'll find the same for the civil rights movement in the U.S. as well as Seattle.In all these examples practically all the violence was perpetrated by the state against those protesting for their freedoms.
That's what happens if you resist the state they go straight to violence.