LP blog: Sign the petition to defend schools by ending failed ‘gun-free’ zones

LP blog: posted by Staff on Jan 07, 2013

Perhaps no topic has been more debated in recent weeks than gun control. When tragedy strikes vulnerable children, anti-gun advocates see it as an excuse to violate individual liberty, pushing for new firearms bans in a foolhardy quest for illusory safety.

The Libertarian Party has always stood for the individual right to keep and bear arms, for self-defense and the defense of others. The next time a killer strikes, the more responsible citizens who are armed, the more likely it is that the tragedy can be minimized through timely intervention.

Defending schools doesn’t have to involve new government programs or expanded police powers. All it takes is letting responsible citizens carry their firearms in schools just as they already do today in restaurants, grocery stores, churches, malls, and many more everyday locations.

Please join with the Libertarian Party in speaking up for your right to self-defense and our right to defend schoolchildren. Please sign our petition today to end failed “gun-free” school zone laws:

http://www.DefendSchools.com/

210 thoughts on “LP blog: Sign the petition to defend schools by ending failed ‘gun-free’ zones

  1. NewFederalist

    When the last law enforcement officer in America turns in his or her weapon(s) to be destroyed, I will consider doing the same. Until then let’s just end the hypocrisy!

  2. Steven Berson

    Ultra-Radical Centrist position is that whether teachers and/or other staff are allowed to carry at a particular school should be done via LOCAL DETERMINATION on a school by school basis via vote done by the PARENTS of the children that go to that particular school. The “one size fits all” and “top down” knee jerk policies being suggested by both anti-gun and pro-gun sides are fairly offensive to URC’s – especially when both some of the more common suggestions – i.e. completely ineffective gun controls or teachers conceal carrying in the classroom – DO in fact have obvious unintended consequences attached to their policies that will likely make MORE problems than the statistically incredibly rare circumstance of a psycho attacking school children.

  3. Jeremy C. Young

    Fact: I think Piers Morgan is a pretty awful human being. Fact: I happen to agree with him on this issue. Paying those two facts aside for the moment — anyone who thinks Alex Jones turned in an effective performance on those videos is smoking something pretty strong. Jones comes off as a raving loon.

  4. Andy

    “Jeremy C. Young // Jan 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    Fact: I think Piers Morgan is a pretty awful human being. Fact: I happen to agree with him on this issue. Paying those two facts aside for the moment — anyone who thinks Alex Jones turned in an effective performance on those videos is smoking something pretty strong. Jones comes off as a raving loon.”

    Alex Jones was dead on right, and what you call a “raving loon” I call a real American who is passionate about liberty defending our unalienable right to keep and bear arms against a smug British jackass who would have been a Redcoat if we were in the 1700′s. Kudos to Alex Jones for standing up to this pompous ass.

  5. Jeremy C. Young

    The goal wasn’t to tear Piers a new one, though, was it? The goal was to convince people watching the show that Jones was right and Piers was wrong. I don’t think Jones did that. I think he instead convinced a lot of people that he’s not the best spokesman for gun rights — and he set up Piers to look like a reasonable guy, which he’s not. Even if I agreed with Jones, I wouldn’t consider any of that a victory.

  6. George Whitfield

    I am glad the Libertarian Party has started the online petition that I readily signed. The LP needs to get more involved in these issues and out in front leading the fight to protect our individual liberties. The last time that I recall them doing this was back when the “Know your Customer” bank regulations were being proposed. The Libertarian Party received a lot of favorable publicity among people who were concerned about that spread of government intrusiveness. Often the LP just doesn’t jump onto these things and leaves the opposition to others. I applaud the LP leaders who put this petition together and online.

  7. Andy

    “Jeremy C. Young // Jan 8, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    The goal wasn’t to tear Piers a new one, though, was it?”

    I’d say part of the goal was to tear Piers a new one.

    “The goal was to convince people watching the show that Jones was right and Piers was wrong. I don’t think Jones did that.”

    How do you know this? How many people have your surveyed?

    Alex brought up several important points, such as:

    - the fact that the UK has an overall higher violent crime rate even though the US has more deaths from guns,

    - the fact that Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership yet has the lowest crime rate in Europe,

    - the fact that there are countries like Mexico which have strict gun control laws yet have crime rates that are much higher than the crime rate in the US,

    - the fact that so called assault rifles are only used in a tiny percentage of crimes,

    - the fact that tyrannical governments like Nazi Germany and communist Russia and China enacted strict gun control laws and then murdered millions of people,

    These are just a few of the important facts that Alex Jones brought up that Piers Morgan was unable to refute.

  8. Andy

    I think that the entire concept of using weapons to revolt against a tyrannical government is alien to Piers Morgan, because he’s on the side of big government. This country was formed as the result of a revolt against the British Monarchy. The “last straw” which provided the spark to start the revolution was when British troops marched on Concord and Lexington to confiscate guns from the colonists. It is important to point out that the colonists were British subjects, so when they fought against the British troops they were fighting against their own government.

    I think that it is clearly apparent that if we were in the 1700′s that Piers Morgan would have been a Redcoat, and that Alex Jones would have been an American Patriot fighting Redcoats like Piers Morgan.

  9. Green_Liberal

    If you took a poll of working teachers less than 10% of them would favor this petition. They wouldn’t want the extra liability and anxiety of having guns in classrooms with children. Children tend to be simultaneously curious and ignorant about guns. Having guns in schools is a totally unnecessary risk.

  10. Be Rational

    Just watched the video. Alex Jones is correct on gun control, he’s nuts on 911, factually uninformed, and he DID come off as a raving, ranting, childish, rude lunatic.

  11. Jeremy C. Young

    I can’t speak for Piers, who, again, is a pretty terrible human being, but I’m on the side of big government and (for the moment) pro-gun-control and I still consider myself convinceable on this issue. I thought Alex made some great points; I also thought Piers made some great points. I don’t like either of them (I probably like Alex more than Piers on a personal level), but I think Piers did a better job of convincing convinceable people like me to take him seriously.

    I’m pro-gun-control for the moment, but I’ll admit it’s more of a gut feeling than a well-reasoned position, which is why I’m still convinceable. My argument in favor of gun control is that guns are bad and we don’t need them and I support the government getting rid of dangerous items like guns, and that the fewer guns are on the streets, the fewer will find their way into the hands of criminals. My argument against gun control is that it might become an unenforceable law like drug laws, which I’m against, and that I don’t actually think getting rid of guns would do much to lower violent crime rates in this country (as no less a big-government supporter than Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine). Then there are a few corollaries, such as that I also want to disarm the police force, and that I don’t support an outright ban on guns without actually repealing the Second Amendment (what DC tried to do, for instance, was unconstitutional). I think all these arguments are reasonable, and I’m not really sure which ones are better.

    So I’m convinceable. I’m just not convinceable by a guy who comes across as a raving loon. The worst part of it is that if Jones had just sat back and let Piers do his thing, Piers would have revealed himself as the raving loon he is, and Jones would have won the exchange. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

  12. Green_Liberal

    @14 Living in Europe I loved that cops hardly ever carried guns (except for a few machine guns in some Italian cities, which was weird as hell). But (sadly) the culture in the States is totally different, requiring armed cops and (consequently) more police shootings.

    Obama should use the bully pulpit to open up a dialogue about our national obsession with gun violence and its roots in the media, the culture, and the reality of empire. When examined closely, the Newton tragedy would not have been prevented by stricter gun control laws. If there was a cause, it was our cultural and spiritual impoverishment, including neglect of healthcare and public health.

  13. Jeremy C. Young

    I would say that armed cops is part of what causes the gun culture of the United States.

  14. Steven Berson

    @10 It is not completely accurate to state the Nazi regime created strict gun control laws. In fact – it was the preceding regimes during the Weimar Republic which created strict gun control laws (something that enabled cells and militias that were willing to break the law such as those organized by the Nazis and Communists to gain illicit fire power that allowed to create intimidating levels of street violence – while law abiding citizens – such as the vast majority of Jewish citizens – stayed unarmed). The Nazi regime in fact relaxed gun control laws as they had been set during the Weimar Republic – for everyone except Jews that is – for whom they prohibited the ownership or possession of any guns.

  15. Steven Berson

    Important to point that the Jews in British controlled Palestine in the 1930′s had to deal with just as strict gun control laws as the Jews in the Weimar Republic at the same time did – but the ones in Palestine made it a point to violate these laws as much as possible in order to stock pile any guns they could. We already know which group ended up tragically dead – and which group ended up in control of their own nation.

  16. Steven Berson

    Talking with gun owners it seems the one control most of them would be ok with would be ending the “gun show loophole” on background checks / waiting period for private sales – which I think could make sense to do as well. But all the attempts to reinstate the very flawed Assault Weapons Ban (which really only deals with cosmetics and does not change anything really) or do absurd things like limit the bullets held by a magazine (when you can change a magazine in 2 seconds on most guns these days) are only creating the best marketing campaign gun makers could possibly have. i.e. they’ve all had record sales in December and I don’t see this slowing down any time soon.

  17. Steven Berson

    What’s the place with the lowest per-capita homicide rate in the world?? Republic of Pallau (in which private ownership of guns is banned fwiw). Maybe it helps to be on a paradise island with lots of sun, alcohol and a little bit of herb (and some subsidies coming from the USA to boot) to mellow folks out though. My friend Adam said it best though “The problem is NOT guns, mental health or violence in the media. The problem is Americans! The answer: MOVE!” :P

  18. Steven Berson

    Regarding this cluster f of a yackfest between two media circus clowns – Alex could have indeed represented the case against gun control infinitely better to the bulk of moderate/detached Americans by giving his points in a calm and reasoned manner. But that’s him just being Alex – attempting to get greater ratings by going off the deep end – in the same ways as that was just Piers being Piers – attempting to get greater ratings by being an annoying arrogant snot – it’s basically all a game with those two designed for infotainment rather than actually trying to report and analyze events, and attempt to gain info and opinion from every possible perspective (what way way long ago used to be called “ethical journalistic practices” and long since completely abandoned). As such – I can’t think of two people more absurd to be quoted or reposting debating any of the issues. But that’s just me.

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    Arming teachers won’t stop incidents such as this. Are we willing to pay them more for carrying a weapon?

    This most likely would not have happened if the guns had been kept in a safe with a combination lock that the accused killer did not have access to. But I have not read or heard of anyone who is suggesting using a gun safe.

  20. Starchild

    Related to this topic, I wanted to briefly share my experience participating in a debate Meetup tonight on the topic of gun control (see http://www.meetup.com/sfdebate/events/97410262/ ). These SFDebate Meetups happen every two weeks in San Francisco, sponsored by the venerable Commonwealth Club of California. The format is that two people give pro/con presentations on a topic, followed by discussion and debate among all the participants.

    Tonight’s debate was on the following resolution: “The house supports Diane Feinstein’s Proposed Gun Control Legislation.” The forum typically attracts 15-20 attendees from a variety of perspectives, but tending to lean moderately left on average. Only 14 folks attended this particular evening, however the debate was quite spirited. One thing I felt was noteworthy was that a couple opponents expressed their views that the opposition to gun control was fueled by the gun industry’s desire for profits. So this may be an argument worth taking time to counter (all I was really able to point out on the spur of the moment and given limited time was that most RKBA supporters like myself have no connection to the gun industry, and that there really isn’t that much money in gun manufacturing compared to other powerful special interests that exert political influence).

    I’m pleased to report, however, that the straw poll taken after the debate found us evenly split, 7-7. For San Francisco (where handguns are banned), in the wake of a major school shooting, I think that’s not bad! One person who had been undecided at the beginning of the evening changed his position to against; no one else changed their minds. But I think those of arguing the pro-defense perspective definitely held our own.

    Of particular interest to me however was the comment of a girl who weighed in on the anti-RKBA side. The explanation she gave for her final vote was that although she admitted that she wasn’t sure gun control would work to reduce violence, she nevertheless wanted to live in a society that symbolically took a strong stand in favor of prioritizing life and against violence.

    This viewpoint suggests to me the following approach that could be persuasive to folks like her if it became a more frequently voiced perspective (feel free to use this sample wording for outreach materials, or substitute your own language):

    “Libertarians don’t want ordinary people disarmed, but we agree that many police departments and government agents have much more firepower than they need. We would appeal to those who want to reduce the presence of guns and violence in their communities and believe gun control is the way to do this, to join us in seeking to reduce the number of government personnel authorized to carry weapons on the job, and to decrease the use of SWAT teams with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, not to mention armored vehicles and other military-grade equipment. While we may not agree on limiting or depriving civilians of their natural and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, we can perhaps work together toward getting some guns off the streets, as well as saving taxpayer money for better uses, by reversing the growing militarization of public servants in the United States.”

  21. Starchild

    By the way, here is the follow-up comment that I posted on the SFDebate Meetup site’s message board, including an excellent op-ed piece from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Someone suggested I post the links here for the videos that I mentioned during our meetup tonight. Here they are:

    (1) “Innocents Betrayed” (documentary film on the international history of genocide and gun control) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls

    (2) Shooting survivor Dr. Suzanne Hupp’s testimony to Congress – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

    (3) Penn and Teller explain the 2nd Amendment – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

    For those who are curious about the gun culture, I also recommend the novel “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross. Parts of it are pretty heavy with technical info about firearms, which can be very educational if you’re trying to learn that kind of stuff, but you can also kind of skip those parts and just enjoy the story, which is fairly long but a good read. The bad news is that it is out of print and you may have trouble finding an affordable copy. I was stunned when I went to look online and discovered that the cheapest copy on Amazon or eBay is $150! http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross-1996-Hardcover-/559245 (Pretty cool for me though, since I happen to have a copy in good condition that I picked up back in the ’90s!) But maybe it will be available as an eBook sometime soon, or with the evident demand it will be released as a paperback or something.

    Finally, I wanted to share a just-published op-ed piece that someone sent me today which I think offers a good commentary on gun rights from a libertarian perspective (copied below, and available online at http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/guns-and-libertarianism/ ).

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))

    GUNS AND LIBERTARIANISM
    by David S. D’Amato
    January 8, 2013

    The tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, has expectedly renewed interest in the “gun debate,” animating the worst inclinations of both the left and right halves of the statist conversation. Some conservative quarters are calling for something like armed-to-the-teeth military police to be stationed in the country’s schools. Progressives have naturally fallen back on all of the stock bilge in adjuring for stricter gun laws. It would thus seem to be as good a time as any for libertarians to interpose with some much-needed nuance, with a sane rejoinder to the constant insistence for more state intervention in our lives.

    Libertarians assess the gun question quite differently than do those in the statist mainstream, evaluating it not in isolation, on an ad hoc basis, but in terms of general principles. Libertarianism, by definition, is not something that can be enacted from on high, declared by fiat to be the governing rule. Rather, it is a benchmark, allowing us to scrutinize society and government as they are now and to imagine them as they should and could be. As applied to the question of guns and gun violence, the libertarian ethic demonstrates forthwith that instead of actually removing guns and attending savagery from society, the state merely chooses who is allowed to hold firearms and engage in such savagery. More-stringent control of firearms never impedes the madman or common criminal, never dissuades the miscreant for whom law and order are regarded as worthless anyway. Further, such control is decidedly not applied to the agents of the state itself, which at the present moment must be considered the most aggressive and abusive criminal actor currently operating.

    Under the standard gun-control proposals, only ordinary working people, the decent and law-abiding citizens on whom gun laws are ostensibly imposed to protect, are disarmed, left without the ability — which is their right — to defend themselves and their families. Such proposals are the natural ally of aggression, which is the true crime to which law should hope to address itself (and, indeed, the only crime that libertarian principles recognize). To coercively foreclose, under the pretense of preventing violent crime, a person’s opportunity to peacefully possess a gun is a cruel joke.

    Those unconversant with the libertarian philosophy reflexively see our resolute defense of a person’s right to arm himself as part and parcel of that broader societal obsession with guns and violence. But given that libertarianism is fundamentally a philosophy concerned with nonviolence and defined by its opposition to all coercion, nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact, a disarmed society, one in the thrall of elite power as a matter of course, is not at all nonviolent, a fact that history has thrown into sharp relief wherever compulsory disarmament was instituted under the law. The whole object of the libertarian philosophy, at its base, is to oppose and to controvert the “the militant type of society,” borrowing Herbert Spencer’s notable formulation. And it is impossible to undermine militancy in society by further obliging the strangulation of the peaceable citizen’s prerogatives, especially while the military imperial state continues to march on.

    Underlying all the wonted calls for further strictures on guns, then, is the basic assumption of every “society organized for militant action” — that “the individuality of each member [of society] has to be so subordinated in life, liberty, and property, that he is largely, or completely, owned by the State.” A genuine censure of the militant type of society, one that would confront the real fount of America’s notorious “culture of violence,” would heed Spencer in focusing on the operating principle of our society — not on disarming nonaggressive individuals. Were we to shift our attention for a moment to the ways in which our society is regimented under the principle of militancy, we would see that sudden, inexplicable eruptions of heinous violence are an unavoidable consequence of that principle.

    So how would things look if societal relationships were characterized by the libertarian idea? Society generally is likely to become less militant, less obsessed with violence and thus with guns as a social archetype, as the principle of nonaggression advances in practice. The societal change that would accompany the full, principled embrace of libertarian ideas — individual sovereignty, private property, consensual agreement and exchange — would have to be extensive. Indeed, to reach such a point of social development and advancement in the first place requires a deep-seated understanding of why a society built on the bedrock of the ideas just listed ought to be preferred to the bellicosity of today.

    Americans can’t have it both ways. Living under a mammoth government that makes bold military empire a matter of civic faith will engender an erratic and warlike populace. That fact has nothing much to do with the accessibility of guns for the average member of productive society. Perhaps the new year will see a movement away from the boring, old debate on guns we keep having, and toward an understanding of a legitimate philosophy of peace and nonaggression: libertarianism.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    While I do believe I agree with Starchild that the government has become TOO militarized domestically, that seems to mostly be a deflection.

    Jones and other gun enthusiasts seem to have 2 main arguments against banning/controlling semi-automatic weapons in the hands of citizens: 1) We “need” them to stop a tyrannical government, should it come to that; 2) It’s a slippery slope…first, the “gun grabbers” will take the semis, then the handguns, then the rifles.

    While #1 is possible (like anything), I find this to be hysterical-sounding rhetoric. I would prefer that Ls never make this case, because it conjures up images of militias, which have far too much overlap with far-right haters. That is an association that I believe damages the cause of liberty on an across-the-board basis.

    #2 is a better argument IMO, but of course that could also be made about AUTOMATIC weapons, too, or even more potentially lethal weaponry. I have not heard a crisp answer about why a private citizen “needs” a semi…is there one? The best answer I can think of is that it’s none of the government’s business what form of weapon a citizen chooses to buy. Unfortunately, that opens the door to the more untenable argument that there’s allegedly a “right” to automatic weapons as well. IF there’s a distinction to be made, I’d like to hear it.

    I’ve still not heard a good counter to my view that there’s a case to be made that what is carried IN PUBLIC is a reasonable role for the State, since public property is owned collectively, and the State is (and will be) the steward of public property for the foreseeable future.

    If the collective deems all weapons to be safely carry-able in public, that’s cool. If the collective says that only handguns can be carried off one’s property, that’s cool, too. If the collective carves out certain public places (the airspace, for ex., or in Congress!) have unacceptable risks, they can ban them in certain places. Preferably, this case is made based on empirical evidence and sound judgment.

    I’m a little surprised that some Ls seem to disagree with me that unencumbered property rights end at one’s property line.

    But, I do remain open-minded about how to interpret the notion of property rights.

  23. Be Rational

    If the conundrum is what is allowable on the commons, the only logical solution that eliminates the conflict of rights is the privatization of the commons.

    So, RC’s reasonable concern is how to handle the administration of the commons in the meantime when it must be delt with and managed, and when privatization has not been implemented, and is unlikely to be implemented in the near future.

    Should we allow unlimited right to own and carry in these common areas (which will satisfy some people), should we ban 2nd amendement rights in common areas (to satisfy another group), should we settle for a compromise (desired by another group)?

    Every solution to the problem of the commons violates someone’s rights. No matter what is decided by the government, many people will not be satisfied.

    This is a “Sophie’s Choice” situation. Whose rights should we allow the government to violate?

    However, banning the production, sale or ownership of arms to be held and used legally on private property is something all Libertarians should oppose. This is a clear violation of rights without justification.

    Privatization of the commons is the ultimate solution to many of our social problems; including not only 2nd Amendment issues, but all school related choice problems such as religion in school, creationism vs. science, arming school personnel for protection, etc.

    We should call for privatization of the schools, the environment, the commons in general to the greatest extent possible. There are very few things that governments need or and even less that governments should be allowed to own.

  24. Dave Terry

    I went to the website provide and signed the petition. I then went to a page that showed all of the names of those who had signed it with my name on the top of the list

    I later returned to this same website to check on what other names had been added (I had forwarded
    the petition info to eight chat lists)

    For some reason I cannot get BACK to that list of names. Can someone provide info on HOW to do that?

  25. George Whitfield

    Dave, #29. I had the same problem. I hope that it is not a defect because it is hard to build publicity for an effort when we cannot see the results.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    br30: However, banning the production, sale or ownership of arms to be held and used legally on private property is something all Libertarians should oppose. This is a clear violation of rights without justification.

    me: Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I think you’ve scoped the issue well EXCEPT FOR the sentence above. I certainly agree that all should have the right to buy a weapon for one’s own property, but I do wonder whether there’s a right to ANY weapon. That is, are there weapons that represent inherent dangers and risks. Most Ls, for ex., would draw that line at non-pointable weapons, e.g., various WMD.

    I have no expertise on the matter, but if the State banned, say, bazookas or automatic weapons even on private property, I can’t say I’d object. If there’s a case that 2A should apply to these sorts of weapons, I’d like to hear the case.

    And, while I’m certainly open to privatizing everything, I view that goal as largely unattainable, making it therefore not a useful concept. I’d certainly like to see most public goods privatized, and I could imagine doing so over time.

  27. Be Rational

    br29: “However, banning the production, sale or ownership of arms to be held and used legally on private property is something all Libertarians should oppose. This is a clear violation of rights without justification.”

    rc32: “Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I think you’ve scoped the issue well EXCEPT FOR the sentence above. I certainly agree that all should have the right to buy a weapon for one’s own property, but I do wonder whether there’s a right to ANY weapon. That is, are there weapons that represent inherent dangers and risks. Most Ls, for ex., would draw that line at non-pointable weapons, e.g., various WMD.”

    Please note that I didn’t say “ALL.” I’m sure that you assumed I meant to say it, but I didn’t. While I think that individuals should be able to own machine guns and other automatic weapons, bazookas and even tanks, I am open to discussing limits in the case of weapons that cannot be owned and used safely without injury to neighbors.

    It is possible to own and fire automatic weapons on private property, even bazookas and tanks, so these should not be prohibited – at least not prohibited when the owner has property large enough or designed to allow safe use.

    In the case of WMDs, as you mentioned, nukes for example, if it is not possible to use them on your private property then what? Does posession of a weapon that cannot be used without destroying innocent neighbors make it a violation of the neighbors property rights?

    Of course, I don’t think that governments should be allowed to own any weapons that the citizens are not allowed . In fact, I’m not sure the government should be allowed to be armed at all.

  28. Be Rational

    rc@32: “And, while I’m certainly open to privatizing everything, I view that goal as largely unattainable, making it therefore not a useful concept. I’d certainly like to see most public goods privatized, and I could imagine doing so over time.”

    Everything takes time.

    I know that this is a trite example, but: Eliminating murder is largely unattainable; it is, nevertheless, a worthwhile goal.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    br: I don’t think that governments should be allowed to own any weapons that the citizens are not allowed

    me: Yes, well, this seems to suggests that ALL governments should immediately disarm at least all WMD. Unfortunately, this is not practical and is not going to happen. Given this, I am OK with prohibiting individuals not getting inherently dangerous/aggressive weapons.

    The “safe use” of bazookas and tanks is an interesting question, one that’s above my pay grade. Who determines what safe use is? Short of the spontaneous order of a UL of “safe” weapons emerging, we again fall back to the State determining this.

    Call it unavoidable statism! ;) It kinda sucks that we humans seem to keep making this mistake, but the alternative hasn’t presented itself to my knowledge.

  30. Be Rational

    @36 As for WMDs and nukes, many people and even governments have been working to limit the spread of these to additional nations and some reductions have been made. This goal is practical and doable, IMO.

    It may be a long, hard road, it may take a long time, it might seem an impossible dream, but that’s a dream I’m willing to dream, time I’m willing to invest, and a road I’m willing endure.

    To me, it certainly makes more sense to attempt to deprive the governments of the world from posession of these weapons than to allow everyone else to have them.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    37 br, all due respect, but you seem to deflect here. You earlier said: “I don’t think that governments should be allowed to own any weapons that the citizens are not allowed .” Now you are praising the notion of non-proliferation, which I generally agree with. Nevertheless, states have WMD. By your statement, since states have them, then individuals should, too. You condition your position on what states have NOW.

    My position is that individuals should not be allowed to have them, and new states should not get them REGARDLESS of whether some states possess them now.

    Ought constructs may be useful guideposts, but is realities are what they are.

  32. Dave Terry

    Robert Cappozi (32) clearly doesn’t understand the reason for the second ammendment in the first place. It has NOTHING to do with protecting the individual from prowlers, thieves or hate crimes.

    The first ten amendments are ALL directed at the same potential aggressor; the government.

    First: Congress will not aggress against you right of free speech!

    Third; The military will not aggress your right to
    control who is ‘quartered’ on YOUR property!

    Fourth: The government must respect your of
    privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures!

    Fifth: Government MUST follow proper due process in charging citizens with criminal acts and may not misappropriate a citizen’s property
    without paying for it!

    Sixth; Government MUST inform an accused of the charges against him at the time of his arrest,
    MUST also be confronted with witnesses against
    him at trial and the accused MUST be allowed the right to have counsel and to compell witnesses to testify on his behalf AND the government MUST guarantee a speedy and PUBLIC trial!

    Seven: Government MUST allow trial by JURY!

    Eight: Cruel and unusual punishments MUST NOT be imposed by government, NOR exessive
    bail or fines be imposed by GOVERNMENT!

    Nine: Any individual rights not specifically listed
    in the previoius eight amendments shall NOT be construed BY GOVERMENT to be disparaged or limited and may NOT be denied!

    Ten: ONLY those powers and authority specifically delegated to the U.S government
    may be enforced by the U.S. government. ALL OTHER powers (unless specifically denied) are
    reserved for STATE governments or to the people.

    SECOND: The right of the people to keep and carry arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the
    stinking U.S. government!

    It has been argued that the Second Amendmant was written for a time when citizens had nothing but single shot muskets and canon.

    It it equally important to note that it ALSO written for a time when the U.S. government ALSO only had single shot muskets and canon.

    “”No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson,

    When only police have guns, it’s called a “police state”. — Robert A. Heinlein.

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
    – Mahatma Gandhi
    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    — Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

  33. Dave Terry

    Robert Capozzi (38) “My position is that individuals should not be allowed to have them, and new states should not get them REGARDLESS of whether some states possess them now.

    SCRATCH A GUN-BANNER, he will bleed Fascist Black!

    “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
    – Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

    Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

    “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party. Mao Tse Tung

  34. Be Rational

    @38 No, RC, I’m not deflecting. I said that I don’t believe that governments should be allowed to own any weapons that citizens are not allowed.

    Citizens are not allowed nukes or other WMD, then fine, take them away from government. It may take time, but that’s a fine solution.

    I would apply the test that a weapon that can be used without harming your neighbors for the rest. The government has bazookas, and if you can fire a bazooka on your property without harming your neighbor, then bazookas should be legal.

    Nukes cannot be used without harming neighbors even at a distance, so they should be banned for governments, even if it takes time to take them away.

    Everything takes time.

  35. Dave Terry

    (41) BR wrote: “I said that I don’t believe that governments should be allowed to own any weapons that citizens are not allowed.”
    “Citizens are not allowed nukes or other WMD, then fine, take them away from government.”

    On the contrary, I believe you are failing to recognize that nukes are not just different than other weapons by a matter of ‘DEGREE’, but by a matter of ‘KIND’!

    In the hands of individuals, Nukes CAN NOT be used with harming innocent neighbors. But I would suggest that Nukes have been shown to be their own best deterent. Mutually Assured Distruction was presented up with the first and ONLY example in history of a weapon that is SO horrible, it has NOT been used in almost 60 years.

    I would suggest that the world would be safer if WMD’s were even extended to include Iran. From my perspective, I see MAD between Israel
    and Iran the BEST hope to avert another halocaust!

  36. Andy

    Robert Cappozi said: “Given this, I am OK with prohibiting individuals not getting inherently dangerous/aggressive weapons.”

    How do you define what an inherently dangerous/aggressive weapon is? Anyone could walk up to a gas station and fill a container up with gasoline and then grab some matches or a lighter and they will then be in possession of an inherently dangerous/aggressive weapon.

  37. Andy

    Starchild said: “For those who are curious about the gun culture, I also recommend the novel ‘Unintended Consequences’ by John Ross.”

    Unintended Consequences by John Ross is a great novel. I read it back around 2002. The only problem I’d have with recommending it is that it is a bit long, at around 600-800 and something pages, and given the length of it, I think that it would mainly attract the most ambitious of readers and/or those who were the most interested in the subject. The average person, particularly those who are only moderately curious about the topic, is not likely to read a 600-800 and something page book (my copy of it is packed away in a box and I haven’t looked at it in a long time).

  38. Andy

    Unintended Consequences by John Ross would make a great movie or TV mini series. I think that a lot more people would watch it as a theatrical release than would actually read the book.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    a43: How do you define what an inherently dangerous/aggressive weapon is?

    me: Good question. I don’t. I don’t have the expertise to define classes of weapons. I’m just thinking out loud about generalities.

  40. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: Good question. I don’t. I don’t have the expertise to define classes of weapons. I’m just thinking out loud about generalities.”

    Who does have this expertise, and how can we know to trust these people to classify weapons properly?

  41. Be Rational

    @42 Unlike you, I am not sanguine about the prospects of nuclear weapons in the hands of more nations. Were Iran, Iraq, Syria and a few others to obtain stockpiles of deliverable nuclear weapons – not just one, but enough to use some and have some left over – then I believe the chance of use approaches 100%.

    Should North Korea develop its technology to the point of being able to accurately launch and detonate a nuclear armed missile, and then stockpile more than 20 such missiles, I am certain that under the current regime they would eventually – a greater than 99% chance within 10 years – use their nukes.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    a47: Who does have this expertise, and how can we know to trust these people to classify weapons properly?

    me: Off hand, I couldn’t say. That’s actually beside the point, though. The point is that I don’t think the questions surrounding RKBA are well framed, which is why there is so much conflict on the matter. Many/most Ls don’t improve the situation by carving out an absolutist interpretation of 2A.

    As we can see in this thread, thinking gets so soft that one poster believes the world needs MORE nukes! Wow!

    While I do remain open minded, that idea might cause others to reconsider their absolutism. Better still, some Ls might even start taking the idea of property rights more seriously.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    more to a47….

    If you take the position that anyone can tote any weapon anywhere, I should ask you…how can you trust that the toters of machine guns in the subway are going to use the weapon with precision, only firing in defense, and not spraying many of the bystanders with lead?

  44. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 5:33 am

    more to a47….

    If you take the position that anyone can tote any weapon anywhere, I should ask you…how can you trust that the toters of machine guns in the subway are going to use the weapon with precision, only firing in defense, and not spraying many of the bystanders with lead?”

    If other people riding on the subway are also carrying guns, then the person with the machine gun in your scenario would not last very long because somebody would pop them off pretty quickly.

    I think that people should be free to carry guns – including machine guns – anywhere that is open to the public.

  45. No Difference

    Yes! Yes! Let’s arm EVERYONE to the gills. Heck, let’s arm school children with weapons so that if their school is invaded by a gunman, they won’t have to wait for a teacher to load their gun. The kids can take care of things right away. Otherwise, there could be tragedy right?

    Then, once the smallest of us is armed to the teeth, this country will be back on the path to the wild, wild west. You were safer living back then because everyone was armed. Unless you got shot and killed, or badly wounded.

    Guns, bullets, machine guns, machettis, C4 and other weapons make the world a better place. So what if a few people lose out because of it? They just need to become better shots.

    In the end, all that matters is violence anyway. So might as well have some fun, right?

    (Notice I did not ONCE suggest anyone’s weapons should be taken away. That wasn’t the point of this post. I just wanted to score some points with the pro-child-killing lobby.)

  46. Andy

    “No Difference // Jan 10, 2013 at 9:10 am

    Yes! Yes! Let’s arm EVERYONE to the gills.”

    A well armed society is a polite society, and it is also a society that is the most able to resist tyranny.

    “Then, once the smallest of us is armed to the teeth, this country will be back on the path to the wild, wild west.”

    You are thinking of the Hollywood version of the Wild West, which is mostly fiction. The overall crime statistics from back then indicate that the so called “Wild West” was actually safer than a lot of places are today.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    51 a, first, I laughed, thinking you are kidding. Then, it occurred to me that you are seriously suggesting this. If the latter, maybe my ignorance of munitions is showing here. I am under the impression that machine guns spray bullets, and that in close quarters, the machine gunner could easily hit everyone in the car in a matter of seconds.

    Help me understand why your model is not patently absurd.

  48. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 5:33 am

    more to a47….

    If you take the position that anyone can tote any weapon anywhere, I should ask you…how can you trust that the toters of machine guns in the subway are going to use the weapon with precision, only firing in defense, and not spraying many of the bystanders with lead?”

    I said that anyone should be able to carry a gun anywhere the public has access. So if a location is open for the public to come and go, then it should be fair game for people to carry guns there.

    You seem to think that it would be common for people to carry machine guns and just start spraying bullets, regardless of how many people were standing around. i do not believe that this would be a common occurrence, and even on the rare chance that this did happen in such a society, I think that there’d be other people carry guns who’d pop this individual off pretty quickly.

    What if a person driving a car or a truck drives into a crowd of people and starts running them over? What if a person fills up a cannister of gasoline and sticks a rag in the top of the canister and then lights the rag on fire and throws it into a building where there are people? What if a person turns on a chain saw and runs through a crowd with it and start cutting people up? What if a person purchases a bottle of bleach and takes it into a restaurant and pours it into a food that is being placed on a buffet line?

    I could sit here and come up with a bunch of crazy scenarios where people could kill or hurt a lot of other people. Should these all be used as excuses to take away our freedoms?

  49. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

    51 a, first, I laughed, thinking you are kidding. Then, it occurred to me that you are seriously suggesting this. If the latter, maybe my ignorance of munitions is showing here. I am under the impression that machine guns spray bullets, and that in close quarters, the machine gunner could easily hit everyone in the car in a matter of seconds.

    Help me understand why your model is not patently absurd.”

    Suppose a person brings a canister of gasoline with a rag sticking out of the top of it on to a crowded subway. Then say while on the subway they pull out a lighter and set the rag on fire. A bunch of people could get burned up. So should gasoline be banned?

    I think that your scenario about a person brining a machine on a subway and then pulling it out and blowing people away, and using this as an excuse to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, is ridiculous.

    Let’s say you got this law passed that made it illegal to carry a machine gun on subways. What makes you think that a criminal is going to obey this law? If some nutcase wants to bring a machine gun on a subway and start blowing people away, the law you got passed is not going to stop them.

    The government can’t keep drugs out of their own prisons, what makes you think that they can prevent somebody who is determined from taking a machine gun on a subway car?

    Can you even come up with one instance where a person brought a machine gun on a subway car and started blowing people away? I can’t recall any such incidents.

    The best thing to do is to allow everyone the right to carry weapons anywhere that is open to the public, including the carrying of machine guns, so they can defend themselves. Will there ever be people who abuse this? Sure, but such a society would be much better off overall where people have the right to do this as opposed to one where they do not have the right to do this.

  50. Dave Terry

    RC (49) “As we can see in this thread, thinking gets so soft that one poster believes the world needs MORE nukes! Wow!

    You have obviously confused “flexible” with
    “soft”!

    Have you forgotten that the ONLY time nukes have actually been used was when ONLY one nation had them.

  51. paulie Post author

    teachers conceal carrying in the classroom – DO in fact have obvious unintended consequences attached to their policies that will likely make MORE problems than the statistically incredibly rare circumstance of a psycho attacking school children.

    Which unintended consequences? Teachers in Israel carry guns, and teachers in the US legally carried guns before the gun free school zones act. In fact marksmanship used to be taught in schools. There are still teachers (and, in some places, yes, students) who carry guns illegally in schools even now.

  52. paulie Post author

    If you took a poll of working teachers less than 10% of them would favor this petition. They wouldn’t want the extra liability and anxiety of having guns in classrooms with children. Children tend to be simultaneously curious and ignorant about guns. Having guns in schools is a totally unnecessary risk.

    No one is suggesting here that all teachers should be required to carry weapons. There are teachers and other school staff who are ex-military, ex-law enforcement, national guard members, and other people trained in gun use and legally licensed to carry firearms right now. It used to be pretty normal for them to carry weapons to work. There are countries where teachers carry guns now, and it’s not resulting in any epidemics of kids getting a hold of the guns and shooting up their classrooms. While I understand where that concern would come from, it’s not borne out by evidence – and since there actually is quite a bit of existing evidence as to what would actually happen, we wouldn’t have to just guess.

  53. paulie Post author

    I can’t speak for Piers, who, again, is a pretty terrible human being, but I’m on the side of big government and (for the moment) pro-gun-control and I still consider myself convinceable on this issue. I thought Alex made some great points; I also thought Piers made some great points. I don’t like either of them (I probably like Alex more than Piers on a personal level), but I think Piers did a better job of convincing convinceable people like me to take him seriously.

    I’m pro-gun-control for the moment, but I’ll admit it’s more of a gut feeling than a well-reasoned position, which is why I’m still convinceable. My argument in favor of gun control is that guns are bad and we don’t need them and I support the government getting rid of dangerous items like guns, and that the fewer guns are on the streets, the fewer will find their way into the hands of criminals.

    If guns are bad, is government going to get rid of theirs? Police officers and the military will still have guns, and may use them to abuse citizens – ranging from the fairly common power trips that a lot of cops go on to historic examples of mass tyranny and massacres of citizens, typically after civilians are disarmed by governments.

    Of course, criminals can still get guns, by not complying with confiscation and hiding their guns, or by getting it from corrupt police and military selling it to them illegally, or even from international arms dealers and gun smugglers. That’s why countries such as Mexico which ban civilian gun ownership sometimes nevertheless have high rates of crime involving guns.

    But let’s say the government did succeed in confiscating all guns from all civilians, including criminals. There are many other tools that criminals can use to kill and terrorize people – knives, bombs, bats, fire, explosives, sharp objects, blunt objects, ropes, any number of chemical solutions (many can be created from common household items)…the list is endless. Even water can be used to torture or kill people – even large numbers of people, say by trapping them and drowning them.

    It’s simply not possible for government to control all the different ways and instruments people can and do devise to hurt and kill each other.

    If you are in fact convinceable, try studying John Lott’s research on More Guns, Less Crime – Lott started out as a supporter of gun control, and the research he did to validate and prove his case instead ended up convincing him that government gun control is counterproductive to the ends it is usually sold as serving. If you don’t have time to read the book, you can read articles, interviews, watch or listen to speeches and interviews with him, etc. He has become a prolific author, lecturer and speaker on this subject.

    You may also want to read articles, watch videos and so on at JPFO.org.

    My argument against gun control is that it might become an unenforceable law like drug laws, which I’m against, and that I don’t actually think getting rid of guns would do much to lower violent crime rates in this country (as no less a big-government supporter than Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine). Then there are a few corollaries, such as that I also want to disarm the police force, and that I don’t support an outright ban on guns without actually repealing the Second Amendment (what DC tried to do, for instance, was unconstitutional). I think all these arguments are reasonable, and I’m not really sure which ones are better.

    So I’m convinceable. I’m just not convinceable by a guy who comes across as a raving loon. The worst part of it is that if Jones had just sat back and let Piers do his thing, Piers would have revealed himself as the raving loon he is, and Jones would have won the exchange. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

    There are different communication styles that appeal to different kinds of people. I would agree that most people will probably find Jones’ style off-putting, regardless of what they think of his substance, or they will never even consider the substance due to the style. This is not based on any survey results, just what I see people typically react to in what ways. However, there are some people who react positively to the style Jones displays here.

    It’s clearly and intentionally attention-getting, and is causing some people who otherwise would not have, and who can get past the theatrics, to research the facts in dispute in that debate. Overall, I think that’s a good thing.

  54. paulie Post author

    I would say that armed cops is part of what causes the gun culture of the United States.

    If police in the US were disarmed, I suspect that taser and baton abuse (including to the point of being lethal) would greatly increase, as would abuse of pepper spray and similar compounds, lethal choke techniques, and so on.

    Furthermore, if it led to increased street crime, we might then hasten the policing of American cities and towns by national guard and military units. That line is being increasingly blurred already.

  55. paulie Post author

    Important to point that the Jews in British controlled Palestine in the 1930?s had to deal with just as strict gun control laws as the Jews in the Weimar Republic at the same time did – but the ones in Palestine made it a point to violate these laws as much as possible in order to stock pile any guns they could. We already know which group ended up tragically dead – and which group ended up in control of their own nation.

    Exactly!

  56. Robert Capozzi

    56 a, no, gasoline should not be banned IMO, but canisters of gasoline in the subway? Possibly. I’d leave that up to the owners of the subway.

  57. paulie Post author

    Regarding this cluster f of a yackfest between two media circus clowns – Alex could have indeed represented the case against gun control infinitely better to the bulk of moderate/detached Americans by giving his points in a calm and reasoned manner. But that’s him just being Alex – attempting to get greater ratings by going off the deep end – in the same ways as that was just Piers being Piers – attempting to get greater ratings by being an annoying arrogant snot – it’s basically all a game with those two designed for infotainment rather than actually trying to report and analyze events, and attempt to gain info and opinion from every possible perspective (what way way long ago used to be called “ethical journalistic practices” and long since completely abandoned). As such – I can’t think of two people more absurd to be quoted or reposting debating any of the issues. But that’s just me.

    They both achieved their objective of getting more attention and name recognition for themselves, which tends to boost ratings. Secondarily, as I said a few minutes ago, hopefully they will prompt some people to do their own research, and I would think they already have, regardless of their infotainment antics.

  58. paulie Post author

    Arming teachers won’t stop incidents such as this.

    Are we willing to pay them more for carrying a weapon?

    No need for that. Many would do so if they were only allowed to. Many, of course, being a relative term.

  59. paulie Post author

    Um…Who is being petitioned? Who are they going to deliver this petition to?

    It’s mainly a way of building the LP contact list. Don’t tell anyone I told you :-)

  60. Robert Capozzi

    58 dt, no, I am quite aware that only states have used nukes. I see no place where I have said otherwise.

    Are you saying that…only states have used nukes, therefore MORE states AND individuals should procure them?

    If so, would you like my feedback on why that is failing logic?

  61. paulie Post author

    “Libertarians don’t want ordinary people disarmed, but we agree that many police departments and government agents have much more firepower than they need. We would appeal to those who want to reduce the presence of guns and violence in their communities and believe gun control is the way to do this, to join us in seeking to reduce the number of government personnel authorized to carry weapons on the job, and to decrease the use of SWAT teams with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, not to mention armored vehicles and other military-grade equipment. While we may not agree on limiting or depriving civilians of their natural and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, we can perhaps work together toward getting some guns off the streets, as well as saving taxpayer money for better uses, by reversing the growing militarization of public servants in the United States.”

    True…we need to help level the “playing” field between civilians and government, and between generally non-coercion-initiating civilians and criminals. That means NO victim disarmament.

  62. Andy

    “If you took a poll of working teachers less than 10% of them would favor this petition.”

    Most working teachers in this country are leftist, big government worshippers, so it would not be surprising if a lot of them do not want to take any responsibility for defending themselves as well as the students in their classes.

    This is yet another reason why this country would be better off if there was a true free market in education.

  63. paulie Post author

    Jones and other gun enthusiasts seem to have 2 main arguments against banning/controlling semi-automatic weapons in the hands of citizens: 1) We “need” them to stop a tyrannical government, should it come to that; 2) It’s a slippery slope…first, the “gun grabbers” will take the semis, then the handguns, then the rifles.

    Both arguments are backed up by plenty of historical precedents from all over the world. Are we supposed to be immune to the lessons of history?

    I’m a little surprised that some Ls seem to disagree with me that unencumbered property rights end at one’s property line.

    The problem comes in when government deems that it has control over some forms of property. At this point, property rights arguments become distorted, because there is no legitimate government property in (or very little, depending on which flavor of) libertarian theory.

    At this point different libertarians revert to arguing for their preferences on their own property being what we should enforce on government property, but those are bad arguments on all sides because they stem from a flawed premise.

    However, given that this flawed premise is the widely accepted norm for society, we have little choice but to deal with it.

    I would suggest a non-initiation of coercion rule on government property – IE, any and all behavior that does not initiate coercion would be legal and allowed. Naturally, this would include some behavior that would grossly violate community standards, such as public sex orgies. Hopefully, this would lead society to reconsider the wisdom of having so many places and things be owned by government.

    Short of that, I think devolving the level of the decisions on what is or is not acceptable on particular government property should be as local as possible, allowing different communities to set their own standards and for people to be able to migrate more easily to areas which have a majority that is more like-minded with them.

  64. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    56 a, no, gasoline should not be banned IMO, but canisters of gasoline in the subway? Possibly. I’d leave that up to the owners of the subway.”

    It would be pretty easy for people to sneak containers of gasoline on to a subway, even if it was a banned substance. The subway system would have search everyone’s bags and check every container of liquid if they even wanted to have a chance to stop somebody from bringing a container of gasoline on to the subway, and even then I’d be willing to bet that a person or persons who were determined to do harm could still sneak a container of gasoline on to a subway and that there’d be nothing that the subway security could do to stop them.

    Also, right now, as far as I know, all of the subway systems in the USA are owned by the government, so they are all public property. Even if they were privately owned, I’d imagine that they’d have to be opened to the general public in order to get sufficient business to make themselves profitable.

    I have a hard time seeing any justification for people not being able to carry weapons with them while riding the subway. If I want to carry an Uzi or a sawed off shotgun or a .44 Magnum or a Samuri sword with me while I’m riding the subway in Washington DC or New York City or anywhere else, I don’t see why I should not be able to do this.

  65. Andy

    “I’m a little surprised that some Ls seem to disagree with me that unencumbered property rights end at one’s property line.”

    I don’t believe that a person gives up all of their rights once they walk off their little plot of land. Unless one stays at home 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year, and 366 days per year during a leap year, people have to venture out in the world. I don’t give up all of my freedoms just because I’ve ventured away from my home.

    Should it be OK to anally rape a person just because that person ventured out of their home?

  66. Andy

    Now that I think of it, I’ve been in Airports where I’ve seen police and military carrying around machine guns. I specifically remember seeing this when I was at Logan Airport which is near Boston, Massachusetts. I’ve seen this in some other Airports around the country as well.

    If they can carry machine guns around at airports then so should I. This may sound radical to some people, but keep in mind that the biggest acts of mass murder throughout history has been carried out by various police and military forces.

  67. Robert Capozzi

    72 a, yes, you could sneak a canister of gas or a machine gun into Disney World or the subway. If you don’t see why these enterprises would want to dissuade such behavior on its face, then I probably can’t help you.

  68. Andy

    Any student of history should know that the greatest acts of mass murder in history have been carried out by armed agents of various governments. People are so indoctrinated in state worship that they think that it is OK for government agents to walk around with machine guns, but then become nervous Nelly’s at the idea of “regular citizens” doing the same thing.

    If you study history, than the sight of government agents (in this case, police and military), walking around with machine guns should scare the shit out of you, especially in place where the right of regular people to walk around with any kind of guns is prohibited.

  69. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    72 a, yes, you could sneak a canister of gas or a machine gun into Disney World or the subway. If you don’t see why these enterprises would want to dissuade such behavior on its face, then I probably can’t help you.”

    You are not dissuading anything, all you are suggesting is infringing on people’s right to defend themselves.

    I’ve clearly illustrated that people who want to do damage can do it regardless of what restrictions you pass.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    77, 78 a, yes, I’m aware of the history, but, no, when I have seen a government agent packing, I have not been frightened. Can you imagine why? Do you see your own non sequitur?

    If Disney bans toting in Disney World, are they violating your 2A rights?

  71. Andy

    I’ve ridden on subways in quite a few places in my life. Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, London (England), and maybe some others I’m not thinking of at the moment.

    One thing I’ve noticed is that a crazy person, or somebody who wanted to kill somebody for some reason, would have a good opportunity to push people in front of an on coming train if they wanted to, yet I’ve never seen this happen. I imagine that it probably has happened before, but it is not a regular occurrence.

    Let’s suppose there was some wackjob who wanted to kill some people on a subway and had the idea of pushing a group of people in front of an on coming train. Let’s suppose the wackjob was a big, strong man. Let’s say a guy who was 6’6″ and 300 lbs. and who lifted weights regularly. Let’s say that he took steroids as well to make it even more interesting. Now let’s say the big, crazy meathead saw a group of much smaller, weaker people standing near an on coming train. He thinks to himself, “Now is my chance.” Let’s say there are 7 of them. . He then rushes them football style and puts his arms out and catches them all by surprise and knocks them on the track below as the train is approaching. The guy is in a crazed rage and then decided to grab some more people, so he grabs a 120 lb. woman with one hand, and a 65 lb. little boy in another hand, and throws them on the track. Three average men are nearby and decide to do something about it, so they rush the big, crazy strongman. Two of them rush him from the front and he punches one of them in the face and he goes down. The other one he grabs by the throat and he starts to throw the guy on the track, but then the other guy jumps on his back and puts a choke hold on him. The guy has a huge, strong neck, and he reaches one arm behind his head and he grabs the guy by his hair and tosses him on to the track. Then he follows up by throwing the other guy on to the track by his throat. The train is coming to fast to stop and it crushes the people who landed on the track. One of them was able to crawl off the track and back on to the platform, but their legs still get ripped off by the train. Now 4 more guys rush at the big, crazed strongman, He grabs one of them and smashes their head through the glass of the subway car. Then the doors of the car open and 5 more guys come out of the car and them manage to get the big, crazed strongman on the ground and subdue him just as the police start to arrive down the escalator. The police attempt to put handcuffs on the guy, but he pulls away, grabs one of their nightsticks, and then rushes at them. One of the cops pulls out a pistol and shoot him right in the heart. He keeps rushing forwards while blood is pouring out of his chest but then he falls over and is dead.

    The death toll from this big, raging steroid head is 12 people dead. Several more people are injured. One guy had his legs ripped off and he’s going to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair. Another guy has a broken jaw. Another has a broken nose. A few more have bumps and bruises.

    No weapons were used here. One large, muscular crazy guy that was hopped up on (illegal) steroids caused all of this damage.

    Would you advocate a law banning large, muscular men from riding on the subway, because one day one of them might go nuts and do something like I said above?

  72. paulie Post author

    Yes! Yes! Let’s arm EVERYONE to the gills.

    Depends on how you define “let’s.” I’m not in favor of mandating anyone who does not want to to carry any type of weapon, nor am I in favor of paying anyone who can’t acquire any weapon they wish on their own any kind of government subsidy for the purpose of doing so.

    Heck, let’s arm school children with weapons so that if their school is invaded by a gunman, they won’t have to wait for a teacher to load their gun. The kids can take care of things right away. Otherwise, there could be tragedy right?

    School children have carried guns in the past, even in the US. I’m not sure if it is the case anymore, but in Switzerland it was at one time common for children to carry their target shooting rifles to school. In Peshawar, a region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is common for children as well as adults to carry machine guns, rocket launchers, etc., and crime is very low. Interestingly, I saw this on a 60 minutes report a few years ago, not a source most people would expect to report on such a story. However, this is not something I would think would “sell” politically, so allowing teachers and staff who want to carry weapons to work to do so seems like a more practical argument.

    Then, once the smallest of us is armed to the teeth, this country will be back on the path to the wild, wild west. You were safer living back then because everyone was armed. Unless you got shot and killed, or badly wounded.

    How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?
    by JUAN FERNANDO CARPIO

    Excerpt:

    In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
    In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
    Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

    DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
    New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
    Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
    Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

    I’ll add a State vs. Liberty figure myself, for further debunking of classroom and media propaganda: the city of New York, with a worldwide reputation as a partly chaotic and violent city during most of the 1970?s and 80?s, has recently had less than half the per capita criminality than the country of Sweden, with roughly the same population.

    Guns, bullets, machine guns, machettis, C4 and other weapons make the world a better place. So what if a few people lose out because of it? They just need to become better shots.

    In the end, all that matters is violence anyway. So might as well have some fun, right?

    Why pretend that the things we are discussing have no historical or global precedent?

    That was it is so much easier to discuss alarmist fantasies rather than relevant real life evidence which actually exists.

    As it happens, teachers and, yes, even kids in schools have been armed in the past, and are now in some other countries. This hasn’t resulted in any great amount of school massacres or accidents. However, Norway and Germany, which are among the nations that have strict government gun “control,” have had horrific school shootings.

    The “wild west” was not actually all that wild, and the rest of the fear based rhetoric about civilian gun ownership is equally lacking in evidentiary basis.

    Fantasies about criminals and psychos shooting up subway cars are interesting mental exercises, but criminals and psychos don’t care what the laws are; they can do that now.

  73. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    77, 78 a, yes, I’m aware of the history, but, no, when I have seen a government agent packing, I have not been frightened. Can you imagine why? Do you see your own non sequitur?”

    The majority of times that my rights have been violated, it has been from a government official. Usually a cop or a bureaucrat of some type.

    So yeah, I tend to get more nervous when I see a government official around me than when I see a regular person.

    I’ve attended lots of gun shows, some of which sold so call “assault rifles,” and I felt a lot more comfortable around the people at gun shows walking around with various guns (including the aforementioned “assault rifles) than I do around the typical cop or whatever other armed thug of the state.

    “If Disney bans toting in Disney World, are they violating your 2A rights?”

    I’m pretty sure that Disney has had a lot of stolen land given to them by government via eminent domain, and that they’ve taken corporate welfare. I also recall reading that there are government entities which own stock in the Disney corporation, and that the money which was used to purchase this stock was stolen from we the people via government imposed taxes, fines, and fees. So I don’t believe that Disney is as private an organization as you are making it out to be.

    You seem to think that the corporate world has a lot more legitimacy than I do.

  74. paulie Post author

    If Disney bans toting in Disney World, are they violating your 2A rights?

    No, it’s their property, although it’s probably government subsidized in various ways.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    80 a, yes, life is full of risks.

    Let me try again: can Disney ban toting at Disney World, or are they violating your 2A rights by doing so?

    Can you imagine why they might have such a policy?

  76. Andy

    I do not consider most of the corporate world to have any legitimacy. Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, most shopping malls, etc… None of them are legitimate. They all feed at the government trough in one way or another, most of them in multiple ways.

  77. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    80 a, yes, life is full of risks.

    Let me try again: can Disney ban toting at Disney World, or are they violating your 2A rights by doing so?

    Can you imagine why they might have such a policy?”

    Disney sits on land that was stolen through eminent domain. Disney has accepted government welfare and government entities purchasing their stock. Therefore they forfeit any claim at being legitimate private property. Therefore they should have to honor the 2nd amendment and the rest of the bill of rights.

    Can you imagine the shit storm that would happen if Disney infringed on freedom of religion? Let’s say they decided to ban Muslims or Jews or some other religious group from going Disneyland or Disney World. People would throw a hissy fit about it and I’d bet that there would be law suits.

    Is the right to keep and bear arms not every bit as important as the freedom of religion?

  78. Green_Liberal

    @60 and @70 you guys have clearly never worked in education. The bottom line is that if you have armed teachers and guns in classrooms, then statistically there will be a much higher risk of an accident or tragedy happening then the supposed risk of deranged gun nuts shooting up the school. That’s just common sense–children are unpredictable. It’s not simply teachers who would oppose arming teachers, but also the vast vast majority of parents. Either way, there is too much risk re. liability to allow guns in schools.

    There are already armed police officers in many of our schools and their presence tends to exacerbate already existing problems.

    Advocating guns on the subway is almost as stupid. There are all kinds of idiots and insane people on the subway, and more guns means more shootings.

  79. Andy

    “No, it’s their property, although it’s probably government subsidized in various ways.”

    It is, and therefore it is not legitimate private property, and therefore they’ve got no legitimate grounds for violating our unalienable rights.

  80. Robert Capozzi

    88 a, work with me, man. Does an individual or a “pure” – say – partnership that has never rent seeked have the right to exclude a toter? Or can the law force a private person/enterprise to welcome a toter against his/her/its will?

  81. paulie Post author

    @60 and @70 you guys have clearly never worked in education.

    The prime mover of this petition on the LNC, Arvin Vohra, works in education. I’ve spent my share of time in government schools and have worked for a state university where I was also a student.

    The bottom line is that if you have armed teachers and guns in classrooms, then statistically there will be a much higher risk of an accident or tragedy happening then the supposed risk of deranged gun nuts shooting up the school.

    Please cite what statistics you are using. I suspect that you are using gut instinct, not statistical evidence.

    In fact, there is real world evidence – from the US before the gun free school zones act, and from other nations such as Israel and Switzerland – and it simply does not demonstrate what you claim.

    That’s just common sense–children are unpredictable. It’s not simply teachers who would oppose arming teachers, but also the vast vast majority of parents. Either way, there is too much risk re. liability to allow guns in schools.

    What passes for common sense is all too often common nonsense. This is one of those cases.

    There are already armed police officers in many of our schools and their presence tends to exacerbate already existing problems.

    I agree. Having armed individuals with nothing else to do except look for or at times instigate trouble is a lot different than having people who have a regular job to do which has nothing to do with guns, but who have guns available to them in case of an emergency.

    Advocating guns on the subway is almost as stupid. There are all kinds of idiots and insane people on the subway, and more guns means more shootings.

    What exactly do you think prevents all these idiots and insane people from doing that now? I’ve been on lots and lots of subways. i even carried guns, illegally, on lots and lots of subways. No one checked.

    I guess you are advocating the TSA for mass transit riders? How much do you want to spend on this, if so, and how many ways and times a day will we all get stopped and frisked any time we go around in public – malls, theaters, stores, public streets, parks…?

  82. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    80 a, yes, life is full of risks.”

    So I’ve illustrated that a large, muscular man could cause a lot of damage without having any weapons.

    Well how about a more averaged sized man, but who is athletic, and who works our regularly and trains in martial arts? Could they not cause some havoc without using any weapons if they wanted to do so?

    Heck, even an athletic woman who works out and trains to fight could cause some damage if they wanted to do something like this.

    Say a crazed athletic man or woman that trains in one or more fighting styles decides to cause some mayhem, so they hide out in a park and wait for random people to jog or walk by on a trail and then they pop out and beat them to death. Then lets say the break into a nursing home and take out a lot of elderly people because they are easy targets. Somebody calls the police but they pop out of a window and slip away before the police can catch them. Their next target is an elementary school or a day care center. They show up and go nuts and beat up or kill a lot of people (including childern) until the cops arrive. This time the cops catch them. They resist arrest so the cops have to pull out their guns. They charge the police so the police respond by shooting them in self defense.

    Should it be made illegal to work our or train in any martial arts? Should athletic people be euthanized because they might use their athleticism to beat less athletic people up?

  83. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    88 a, work with me, man. Does an individual or a “pure” – say – partnership that has never rent seeked have the right to exclude a toter? Or can the law force a private person/enterprise to welcome a toter against his/her/its will?”

    The only situation I could see would be places which are truly private property from a purist (or as close to pure as possible) libertarian perspective and are not open to the general public. Like say Robert Capozzi’s home as one possible example. Even then there should be some kind of advance notice that the bearing of arms is restricted in such place, and I would even say that there could be some kind of contract that says that if a person enters that property that the property owner is responsible for their protection since they are not allowing them to defend themselves on the property, and they would therefore be held liable for damages if they fail to protect them from any threat.

  84. Steven Berson

    Paulie – regarding what are potential unintended consequences of having teachers conceal carry in the classroom – I’d point you to this little news item as giving you a better idea – http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher/

    Also – since you brought up the example of Israel as somehow being something to emulate – it’s important to note that in Israel there are way stricter gun control laws than there are here. Teachers that are allowed to carry in their schools are only the ones that have done (usually obligatory 3-year) stints in the IDF first and must be further registered to do so. Also – generally the teachers in Israel do NOT carry in classes – generally there are specifically designated armed guards for Israeli schools instead.

  85. paulie Post author

    Should it be made illegal to work our or train in any martial arts? Should athletic people be euthanized because they might use their athleticism to beat less athletic people up?

    If we follow the logic of “gun control” this may eventually happen.

    After all, there are already jails and prisons where weight lifting is being taken away from inmates and even doing martial arts exercises and teaching martial arts techniques among inmates is against regulations.

    Meanwhile, TSA is slowly starting to spread to commuter transportation, stadiums, and so on. Other government agencies are increasing their use of stop and frisk, SWAT teams, surveillance of all kinds of government property, and so on…so we are slowly being turned into a more jail-like environment.

    Where does this eventually lead? A giant prison state of global proportions in the name of safety?

    And if excessive physical skill is eventually considered too dangerous, what about excessive intellectual or creative skill?

    Don’t rule out anything being possible in the name of government controlling dangerous tendencies among citizens – not only could any of these things happen, but there are times and places where they already have.

  86. paulie Post author

    Paulie – regarding what are potential unintended consequences of having teachers conceal carry in the classroom – I’d point you to this little news item as giving you a better idea – http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher

    Yes, incidents do happen. What I haven’t seen is any statistical evidence that they have been or would be widespread.

    Also – since you brought up the example of Israel as somehow being something to emulate – it’s important to note that in Israel there are way stricter gun control laws than there are here. Teachers that are allowed to carry in their schools are only the ones that have done (usually obligatory 3-year) stints in the IDF first and must be further registered to do so. Also – generally the teachers in Israel do NOT carry in classes – generally there are specifically designated armed guards for Israeli schools instead.

    Military service in Israel is universal for men and women for most of their adult lives, with some exceptions. The rule is for most people to have active duty experience and regular refresher short stints, and be part of the reserves.

  87. paulie Post author

    And as I said earlier there are plenty of school staff (including, but not only teachers) that have military and other additional training and certification, so this would not be an issue.

  88. Steven Berson

    Again – regarding statistical incidence – kids getting killed by psychos while at school is a extremely rare.

    I’ll say it again: both anti-gun and pro-gun factions are being hyperbolic and emotionally knee jerking in this. The Ultra-Radical Centrist position for this is to have local determination on a school by school basis for it – decided by the parents that have their kids enrolled at each particular school.

  89. Paulie

    That would be a good step in the right direction. And on that level, I would also argue in favor of gun rights.

    I agree that the current federal legislation is the biggest problem here.

    It’s true that school shootings are rare, but they are understandably dramatic and the severity of the trauma is why they cause an outcry for action, including legal remedies.

  90. Steven Berson

    If there’s one thing I know is that “one size fits all” “top down” legal “remedies” generally backfire in the worst ways. Each community will likely want to deal with this differently. Let them.

  91. Paulie

    As I’ve said I agree with you.

    Specifically what we are calling for is repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act, which is federal.

    We do also have an opinion on local issues, which local LPs pursue, but that’s not the same as having a top down requirement of what all local areas must do.

  92. Andy

    Paulie said: “Where does this eventually lead? A giant prison state of global proportions in the name of safety?”

    A giant prison state of global proportions is exactly where this leads, and this is exactly what is behind the gun control agenda.

  93. Andy

    ‘paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    ‘Should it be made illegal to work our or train in any martial arts? Should athletic people be euthanized because they might use their athleticism to beat less athletic people up?’

    If we follow the logic of ‘gun control’ this may eventually happen.”

    I’ve heard that there are some places, like New York City and Washington DC I believe, where certain weapons that are not guns are illegal, or in some cases may be legal to own in one’s home, but are not legal to carry. Like certain knives, swords, throwing stars, nunchuks, brass knuckles, etc…

    I remember being in Washington DC a few years ago and an associate of mine had a small can of mace that was attached to their key chain confiscated from them by a cop. I think it was one of those Metro cops on the subway.

    What’s next? Ban or require permits for baseball bats, kitchen knives, crow bars, hammers, hatchets, chain saws, etc…?

  94. Be Rational

    Andy, you’re going way too far.

    RC is correct in his point that private property owners, including corporations, have the right to ban guns or smoking or drugs or whatever – they should even have the right to be disgusting bigots, racists or sexists, although this would destroy a major corporation due to the bad public relations.

    So, a privately owned subway system or Disney or whatever big corporation you are personally biased against has the same libertarian private property rights as anyone else.

    It doesn’t matter how Disney acquired its property – they did it legally – and you have made an unfounded assertion that they may have used Eminent domain. It has no bearing on this discussion in any case. Private property owners are entitled to restrict access and create rules for those allowed to enter.

    If you have a claim against them regarding land they stole from you, that is an issue. Otherwise this is a non-libertarian position on your part. Perhaps we should send you off for re-education with Root. (FYI – this is not a serious suggestion.)

    [Perhaps I should check it out though. My great-grandfather owned several thousand acres of worthless swamp land that he bought for peanuts and sold for more peanuts all of which is now right in the middle of Disneyworld.]

  95. Andy

    Here’s a thought: what if teachers or other school employees were allowed to have access to guns at schools, or what if schools started to used armed guards or armed police officers, and one or more of them went nuts one day and went on a rampage and started killing people? How can we be sure that none of the protectors will never turn on the people whom they are supposed to protect?

  96. Paulie

    I remember being in Washington DC a few years ago and an associate of mine had a small can of mace that was attached to their key chain confiscated from them by a cop. I think it was one of those Metro cops on the subway.

    It was at a public park – 4th of July celebration, iirc. I was there when that happened.


    What’s next? Ban or require permits for baseball bats, kitchen knives, crow bars, hammers, hatchets, chain saws, etc…?

    Already starting to happen in the UK and other places.

    But as I said earlier, there will always be other potential implements of death and destruction. Rubbing two sticks together can start a fire, and a fire could burn down a whole city. How do you outlaw that?

  97. Andy

    “It doesn’t matter how Disney acquired its property – they did it legally – and you have made an unfounded assertion that they may have used Eminent domain. It has no bearing on this discussion in any case. Private property owners are entitled to restrict access and create rules for those allowed to enter. ”

    Eminent domain for private use is NOT legal. Tax subsidies to corporation is NOT legal. Government investment funds purchasing stock in corporations is NOT legal.

    I know for a FACT that there are government entities which have used tax payers money to purchase stock in the Disney corporation. I found this out a few years ago when I was researching government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).

    I will have to do some more research about the eminent domain and corporate welfare parts, but I recall hearing a few years ago that Disney has benefited from this as well.

    I consider these things to be anti-free market and unconstitutional as well.

    Let’s say I’m at Disney and some other person at the park goes nuts and attacks me. Or let’s say I had kids and another patron of the park kills them. Could I then sue the Disney corporation for failing to protect myself and my family, or would the Disney corporation be protected by limited liability? I’m not talking about getting hurt on a ride, or slipping and falling, I’m talking about some random nut who is a fellow patron going on a rampage.

    I know that when it comes to the police, you can’t sue them successfully for failing to protect yourself or anyone else. People have tried several times and the courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to provide protection.

  98. Be Rational

    As to arming school personnel:

    It doesn’t take a large number in each school to create an effective deterrent – just a few on staff; it doesn’t have to include any teachers, and certainly those against being armed shouldn’t be armed.

    Some staff members, maybe a few teachers, could carry chemical sprays such as mace, perhaps the principal or vice principal would be trained and carry a hand gun. Office or administrative staff members, a history teacher, a coach … just a few here and there armed, and all staff members potentially armed as far as outsiders are concerned, and the threat of armed attacks in the schools would be largely eliminated.

    If we change our schools into “armed and protected zones” instead of “gun free, unprotected victim zones” it would cause most of these cowardly attackers to back off, especially after one of them gets shot down a the beginning of an attack.

  99. Paulie

    How can we be sure that none of the protectors will never turn on the people whom they are supposed to protect?

    We can’t be sure, which is why having more than one at a given school would provide some checks and balances, but I don’t think it would be common in any case.

  100. Be Rational

    @106 You should check facts before making unverified assertions re Disney or anyone.

    As far as government entities buying stock in corporations, this is not something the corporation can prevent, because it is legal. So, if that’s your problem, again blame government, not the private corporation or its private shareholders or employees.

    As to protection while you are at Disney, yes you can sue them if you are attacked and they don’t protect you. They will have to pay. They carry enough insurance and have deep pockets, so don’t worry, you can settle for more than you deserve and potentially win the lottery and get a really big award if you risk going to court.

    You don’t understand “limited liability” by the way. Limited liability doesn’t mean that Disney won’t have to pay. It means that if you manage to win an award of enough to bankrupt Disney – however many hundreds of billions of dollars that would take – then after looting Disney and their insurers, you could not go after the individual shareholders on top.

  101. Andy

    Hey, what if we had this group called the US military, and what if their job was to protect us from attack from a foreign nation? What if they were really well armed with the best weapons available in the world? Then what if instead of defending us from being attacked, they went to other countries in far away parts of the world and started killing masses of people who had never attacked us, or even had the capability of getting over here to attack us?

    Oh yeah, this has already happened a bunch of times, and is in fact happening right now.

    The US military has caused the deaths of far more innocent people than the number of people who are victims of street crime in this country. How many people are clamoring to take their weapons away from them?

  102. Andy

    “Be Rational // Jan 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    As to arming school personnel:

    It doesn’t take a large number in each school to create an effective deterrent – just a few on staff; it doesn’t have to include any teachers, and certainly those against being armed shouldn’t be armed. ”

    What if a school bus drive goes nuts and decides to drive a school bus off of a bridge and into a river, and suppose it causes 40 kids to either die in the crash or drown.

    Or let’s say they stash a gun in a bush that is on their bus route. They pull over, get out of the bus, pull the gun out of their secret stash, and then sit their and pop off all of the kids. Some of them try to escape through the windows but the school bus driver locked all of the windows so they could not escape.

    Then let’s say the school bus driver drives back to the school. There’s a football game and the school’s football stadium is starting to fill up. The school bus driver rigged the bus full of explosives. They drive the bus into the bleachers and kill a bunch of people in the process. Then the bus explodes killing even more people.

    How do you stop this scenario from happening?

  103. Steven Berson

    Paulie –
    that’s where the wording for this petition fails to make itself clear for me. It does not say that it is specifically towards the repeal of the Federal Gun Free Zones Act – which we both do strongly agree on in that it should be repealed – but instead just gives a generic general call for allowing teachers to carry in the classroom..

    So – while I think Federal (and even State) laws mandating failed “gun free zones” should be repealed – I support local school districts banning their teachers and staff from carrying in the classroom if that is what the majority of the parents that send their kids to that particular school wish it to do. Yes – it’s a “tyranny of the majority” – but this way it would be at the most decentralized level possible determined by the people who actually have a stake in it rather than being influenced by outside special interests.

  104. Andy

    Let’s say a school cafeteria lady goes nuts. One day she snaps and decides to poison everyone. She gets some poison and puts it in everyone’s lunch (except for the people who brought their own bag of lunch from home that day). 325 people who ate in the cafeteria die. It’s the biggest mass killing at a school in the history of the USA. No guns were used.

    Here’s another one. Say a high school chemistry teacher goes nuts. One day he makes up a bunch of poison gas and has it in canisters. He releases the poison gas in all of the school air vents. He manges to lock people in some of the rooms that are filled with poison gas. 143 people die.

  105. Be Rational

    @111 Andy, you’re going off the deep end with your “what if’s” …

    How about … “What if Obama and the Joint Chiefs decided to just nuke America and get it over with … ”

    Take a nap. See a funny movie. Relax. Calm down. Get serious.

  106. Robert Capozzi

    110 a, few are “clamoring” for that. Rather, the nation is having a national conversation about the meaning of 2A, and what weapons can be carried where.

    The military is doing its job, following the orders of the civilian government. It’s a non sequitur to introduce and equilibrate what the military does overseas with the spate of mass slayings domestically by deranged civilians who were not in any way doing their jobs.

    Taking an extreme position about what can be toted and where it can be toted tends to hurt the cause of liberty and gun rights, since such extremism is easily dismissed as extremist.

  107. Andy

    I’m coming up with these scenarios to prove a point, and that is that keeping people safe from wackos who are intent to do harm is a myth. If a person is determined to harm others there are many ways to do it. Nobody can come up with enough laws to stop them. The protectors can not be relied upon because they will not be able to stop everything, and they may end up becoming the ones who do harm.

  108. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “The military is doing its job, following the orders of the civilian government.”

    The military is doing its job??? They take an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. When is the last time that Congress declared war? Back in World War II? Every war or so called “police action” taken by the US military since then was and is completely unconstitutional.

    How many US troops have taken orders from the United Nations? This is totally unconstitutional.

    How many US troops have been used in domestic police activities? This is totally unconstitutional.

    I would say that it is pretty clear, that there are numerous instances of the US military NOT doing its job. Everyone involved from the lowest ranking troops to the highest ranking officers to the politician who command them is violating their oaths of office.

    And this is just going by the minarchist/constitutionalist argument. Going for the anrcho-capitalist libertarian standpoint, the military is not legitimate because it is funded through coercive taxation. All taxation is theft.

  109. Be Rational

    @117 This is why people watch movies about superheros and magic powers, they are looking for magical solutions or superbeings to solve their problems. Then they vote for socialists who promise that “super-government” will solve their problems.

    Others don’t believe in superheros and magic, so they invent villains and conspiracies to explain the world’s problems and assign blame.

    The rest of us will have to be rational, explain and teach, and vote Libertarian.

  110. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “The military is doing its job, following the orders of the civilian government.”

    This was the Nuremberg excuse used by the Nazis. “I vas only folloving orders.”

  111. Andy

    The same argument can be used by statist pig cops when they arrest somebody for some bullshit victimless “crime” like possessing marijuana. Hey, they are only following orders. They are just doing their jobs when they lock people up in cages for something that isn’t even really a crime.

  112. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, as a peacenik myself, I agree with much of your critiques of US f.p. However, to the extent you suggest that our troops in Asia are equivalent to the Nurenberg defendants is a big-time stretch. It’s indisputable that they tote – often high powered – arms for a living.

    Your impassioned albeit tangential attempts to justify THE broadest interpretation of 2A that I have seen is unconvincing to me, and I suspect is unpersuasive in the public square. My guess is it would help the gun grabber’s case, as your view is easily marginalized.

    But, then, I’ve wrong before, though in this case, I doubt it.

  113. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Taking an extreme position about what can be toted and where it can be toted tends to hurt the cause of liberty and gun rights, since such extremism is easily dismissed as extremist.”

    Aren’t you the one who brought up the issue of people carrying machine guns on subways?

  114. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Robert Capozzi // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Andy, as a peacenik myself, I agree with much of your critiques of US f.p. However, to the extent you suggest that our troops in Asia are equivalent to the Nurenberg defendants is a big-time stretch. It’s indisputable that they tote – often high powered – arms for a living.”

    Look, I understand that the people who join the military went through 12 years of public school brainwashing, and were no doubt brainwashed by the media as well. Most of the join because they need a job and/or they need the money for college. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS and other government agencies have done a good job at screwing up the economy, so there are less jobs and business opportunities available to these people in the marketplace. So many of them turn to the military.

    Believe me, I have known many military people in my lifetime. A lot of them are fine as people. Many of them are actually apolitical. Some of them are political and are hardcore statists. A surprising few are libertarians and/or constitutionalists. A very few come to the realization that it is a scam and they get out (like Adam Kokesh).

    I do not automatically dislike everyone in the military, or everyone in the government for that matter. Sure, some of them I do dislike vehemently, but some of them are otherwise decent people who happen to be stuck in a bad system.

  115. Andy

    I remember when Ron Paul was running for the Republican Presidential nomination that he got the highest amount of support from people serving in the military than any other candidate. This was a very pleasant surprise. It shows that there are more military people out there than a lot of people realized who know that a lot of what the military is doing is unconstitutional. I have a lot of respect for these military people who supported Ron Paul. I wish there were more like them.

    Unfortunately, there a lot of others in the military who don’t know anything about politics and just do what they are told, as well as a lot of others who are hardcore statists.

  116. Robert Capozzi

    122 a, yep, sure did. I am trying to understand the absolutist position you seem to be advocating by testing it on the edges. It fails for me, and I suspect most.

    Absolutism is such a high hurdle, for one exception destroys the entire position.

    For you, perhaps that makes me a brainwashed gun grabber. Some may find yours to be that of a brainwashed gun zealot, potentially a dangerous person. Personally, I prefer my positioning to yours.

  117. Andy

    15 Year Old Houston Boy Defends Home from Burglars with his Fathers AR15

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

    How come this news story is not getting more coverage? This 15 year old grabbed an “assault rifle” owned by his father and used to to fend off some criminals that were breaking into his home. Should this kid have called the police instead and waited for them to arrive? If he would have, it is quite possible that he and his sister would be dead right now.

  118. Robert Capozzi

    I guess the point is that A gun (non semi) might have been just as effective. And, unfortunately, big mass killings of children are more dramatic than single, isolated cases of successful self defense.

  119. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    I guess the point is that A gun (non semi) might have been just as effective.”

    Maybe, maybe not, but this is beside the point.

    I remember hearing about some Korean shop owners in Los Angeles who used so called “assault rifles” to defend their stores during the LA riots. If one is defending against a group of rioters an “assault rifle” would certainly come in handy.

    “And, unfortunately, big mass killings of children are more dramatic than single, isolated cases of successful self defense.”

    Yeah, the media considers that to be a more “juicy” story, but it also conveniently fits with the anti-gun rights agenda that most of the media has.

    The many reports of people uses guns to ward off criminals are grossly under-represented in the media, and I think that this is done on purpose.

  120. Andy

    I think that the term “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” get used because they sound more scary.

    This is much like several years back the term “cop killer bullets” was coined by people who wanted to pass some anti-bullet regulations (for regular people of course, not those in government).

    I think that it should be legal for regular people (as in those not employed by government) to own both semi-automatic as well as fully automatic guns, and it should be legal for regular people to own so called “cop killer bullets” as well.

  121. paulie Post author

    Even anyone who would like to imagine that the US is immune to the laws of history, and that tyranny could never happen here as it did in many nations that had once been what we call free, should know…

    Criminals may well invade your home in groups, and/or wear body armor, and/or have “assault” rifles.

    And you’ll be dead while you wait for the cops to arrive or try to fend them off with a revolver or bolt-action rifle.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    P, A, yes, not necessarily, agreed. But has person ever defending him/herself with a FULLY automatic? If yes, that MAY justify making ALL fully automatics legal, as A wants. I can’t say it does, though. I do not find it unreasonable to ban them from domestic use.

    Similarly, I think P overstates the “law” that (apparently) he seems to believe that gun control nations devolve into totalitarianism. Most gun control is contra-indicated IMO, but certain restrictions sound like good ideas. For ex., if the ONLY gun restriction was banning machine guns on subways, I just don’t see that as leading to a Fourth Reich.

    If so, how so?

  123. paulie Post author

    But has person ever defending him/herself with a FULLY automatic? If yes, that MAY justify making ALL fully automatics legal, as A wants. I can’t say it does, though. I do not find it unreasonable to ban them from domestic use.

    Why do we need to justify why possession of an inanimate object should be legal? Converting semi-automatics to fully automatic can be pretty easy. One guy who has done it a lot said it only takes him a few minutes (if that) and requires no special tools. Information on how to do it is readily available.

    I’d rather put the presumption on innocence and outlaw only what a person may do with a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon (IE initiate aggression). Not presume the tool they use as guilty until proven innocent.

    A lighter can set a fire that could kill more people than a fully automatic weapon. Many, many other common implements and household chemicals can be used to unleash death and destruction on groups of people, even large groups.

    As a practical matter I welcome steps towards what I want and oppose steps away from what I want. There are enough people already arguing for new and expanded restrictions on gun ownership. Even if I agreed with them about some of the guns, and I don’t, why would they need my help to push in that direction?

    Similarly, I think P overstates the “law” that (apparently) he seems to believe that gun control nations devolve into totalitarianism.

    I didn’t say it was a law. Only that it has happened many times, all over the world, and that we are better off being safe than sorry.

    It’s not a law that you will get robbed if you never lock your house or car. It’s not a law that you will get rolled if you are frequently staggering drunk around the “bad” part of town at night and are not “from around there”. And it’s not a law that we’ll necessarily end up with totalitarianism. But we should be prepared to resist if we do, and shouldn’t help facilitate making it easier to get away with by going down the slippery slope of victim disarmament.

    Most gun control is contra-indicated IMO, but certain restrictions sound like good ideas

    Yes, and then once those become the norm, expanding the restrictions starts to sound like a good idea, and then expanding them some more, and so on and on like that until we are banning baseball bats, knives, and lead pencils.

    For ex., if the ONLY gun restriction was banning machine guns on subways, I just don’t see that as leading to a Fourth Reich.

    Well, if we only ban the Story of O, that doesn’t mean we’ll be banning Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 some time after that. It has to start somewhere.

  124. Robert Capozzi

    p 134: Why do we need to justify why possession of an inanimate object should be legal?

    me: I disappoint myself that I need to explain this again, especially to such a learned person as yourself. So, let me try again. Some inanimate objects represent what we might call “inherent risks.” WMD, for ex. Unless you are the rare L who believes that there’s a right to private WMD, it’s easy to see why their possession should be banned. Governments have them, but we’d not want them to proliferate in the private market.

    This establishes the principle that some inanimate objects should be banned. Unless you’re the minority L who believes in the right to private nukes, I would hope you would concede that some inanimate objects should NOT be legal.

    P: Converting semi-automatics to fully automatic can be pretty easy. One guy who has done it a lot said it only takes him a few minutes (if that) and requires no special tools. Information on how to do it is readily available.

    me: Calling bullshit here. Smokescreens don’t play here, and this is a smokescreen. No one believes that a law would lead to 100% compliance. Murder has been on the books for centuries, yet murders still happen. Laws are intended to minimize unacceptable behavior by signalling such. I have not taken a position on automatic weapons and whether they are protected by 2A. I have taken a position that toting off one’s property is a property rights question.

    P: I’d rather put the presumption on innocence and outlaw only what a person may do with a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon (IE initiate aggression). Not presume the tool they use as guilty until proven innocent.

    me: I generally agree. Except I’m OK with states and localities exercising their property rights to prohibit toting of unacceptably risky weapons in inappropriate places. Were I on the NYC board, I would vote to ban machine guns in the subway. If this makes me a “gun grabbing statist,” then so be it. If someone disobeyed the law and was sitting in a subway car with a machine gun, I’d get off…quickly.

    P: A lighter can set a fire that could kill more people than a fully automatic weapon. Many, many other common implements and household chemicals can be used to unleash death and destruction on groups of people, even large groups.

    me: Right. A lighter, however, is not an inherent risk. Some might view a machine gun in the subway to be so. They MIGHT be incorrect, but I do see their point! Don’t you?

    P: As a practical matter I welcome steps towards what I want and oppose steps away from what I want. There are enough people already arguing for new and expanded restrictions on gun ownership. Even if I agreed with them about some of the guns, and I don’t, why would they need my help to push in that direction?

    Me: Right, well, this is the Rothbardian negotiation strategy. “Demand” the most outrageous position in hopes of getting maximum liberty. The big flaw I see in this is that taking lunatic-sounding positions leads to FBI watchlist status at worst and marginalization in the public square at best. Neither enhances liberty in the here and now. Positioning oneself as an unreasonable lunatic seems like a dysfunctional way to play politics.

    P: I didn’t say it was a law.

    me: Sorry, but you did. P 132: “Even anyone who would like to imagine that the US is immune to the laws of history,…”

    P: Yes, and then once those become the norm, expanding the restrictions starts to sound like a good idea, and then expanding them some more, and so on and on like that until we are banning baseball bats, knives, and lead pencils.

    me: False, unless you can prove your assertion. A slope may be slippery, but that doesn’t mean that slipping is a sure thing, yes?

    P: Well, if we only ban the Story of O, that doesn’t mean we’ll be banningFahrenheit 451 and 1984 some time after that. It has to start somewhere.

    me: True. As an anarchist, you might object to laws against murder, too. As a lessarchist, I’d say they are a pretty good idea.

  125. Andy

    I don’t know how this happened, but somehow the wrong Larken Rose video got posted above. Oh well, I was probably going to post a link to that one anyway.

    Here’s the link I meant to post.

    Larken Rose: When Should You Shoot A Cop?

  126. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Murder has been on the books for centuries, yet murders still happen.”

    Murder, unless it is in self defense, is the initiation of force, owning a machine gun is not the initiation of force.

    “Laws are intended to minimize unacceptable behavior by signalling such.”

    Who says that owning a machine gun is unacceptable behavior?

    “I have not taken a position on automatic weapons and whether they are protected by 2A.”

    Is the internet protected by the 1st amendment? Afterall, there were no computers back in the days of the Founding Fathers.

    “I have taken a position that toting off one’s property is a property rights question.”

    So basically, we only have rights when we are at home, but if we leave are homes we give up our rights. I don’t agree with this line of reasoning.

  127. paulie Post author

    Laws are intended to minimize unacceptable behavior by signalling such. I have not taken a position on automatic weapons and whether they are protected by 2A. I have taken a position that toting off one’s property is a property rights question.

    If you have taken the position that government property is legitimate and/or a given and comes with property rights for the elected politicians and/or appointed bureaucrats to decide what all someone may carry off their property, does this include anything capable of causing mass death and destruction, such as a lighter? And what enforcement measures do you deem acceptable in the service of such bans – stop and frisk anywhere at random with strip cavity searches and X-rays?

    You may have a point about private nukes, in that it is impossible to deploy them without killing innocent people. However, they do nevertheless have a use as a deterrent which does not have to involve deploying them, although I imagine the insurance for having one may be astronomically high or even impossible to obtain. I don’t really trust governments with these weapons, either.

    On the other hand, it’s completely possible to carry an automatic machine gun on the NYC subway without firing it. I’ve even done it. No one was shot or killed. It’s also possible to shoot one without killing anyone, and certainly without killing innocent people.

    A lighter, however, is not an inherent risk. Some might view a machine gun in the subway to be so. They MIGHT be incorrect, but I do see their point! Don’t you?

    It all depends on the intent of the person with the potential instrument of death. A lighter could be very deadly in some dry woods, but it still takes an idiot and/or scumbag to use it to start a massive forest fire. A machine gun can certainly be used to kill a bunch of people in a crowded subway car, but it can’t do it unless someone pulls the trigger. In either case a ban seems rather unlikely to be enforceable. Are we going to ban coats capable of concealing guns on the subway as well? Or set up TSA at every subway stop?

    Regardless, I wouldn’t have a problem with the regulation if the subway was privately owned. To the extent that I have a voice or vote while the government deems itself to be the property owner, I’ll use it against these restrictions.

    As a practical matter I welcome steps towards what I want and oppose steps away from what I want. There are enough people already arguing for new and expanded restrictions on gun ownership. Even if I agreed with them about some of the guns, and I don’t, why would they need my help to push in that direction?

    Right, well, this is the Rothbardian negotiation strategy. “Demand” the most outrageous position in hopes of getting maximum liberty. The big flaw I see in this is that taking lunatic-sounding positions leads to FBI watchlist status at worst and marginalization in the public square at best. Neither enhances liberty in the here and now. Positioning oneself as an unreasonable lunatic seems like a dysfunctional way to play politics.

    I said nothing about any such positioning. In fact I explicitly said that I would work for incremental change in the direction I want and against incremental change in the direction I don’t want.

    I’m not pushing for “all or nothing” or “100% of everything I want right now or forget it.” I said if you are pushing for more restrictions I’ll be on board to stop you, and if you are pushing to cut them I’ll be on board to help you. As a practical matter that mostly means fighting over changes, in either direction, which are politically plausible in the short term.

    Why are we even wasting time arguing about private nukes and fully automatic weapons on subway cars when we are dealing with a very real, very imminent threat of possibly sweeping new restrictions being imposed? I don’t find such deflections helpful.

    Sorry, but you did. P 132: “Even anyone who would like to imagine that the US is immune to the laws of history,…”

    You misunderstood what I meant by law. The law is not that gun restrictions guarantee more sweeping tyranny and large scale massacres of civilians. It’s that it increases the likelihood while simultaneously removing our ability to fight back. I find that to be an unacceptable risk.

    A slope may be slippery, but that doesn’t mean that slipping is a sure thing, yes?

    Not a sure thing, but, again, an unacceptable risk.

    As an anarchist, you might object to laws against murder, too.

    I don’t object to laws against the initiation of coercive force/aggression. I don’t think coerced monopolies are the best way to enforce such laws, but that’s a highly theoretical argument.

    I prefer to spend a proportionally larger share of my time dealing with more practical matters.

    Not that I would totally ignore theory, but I’ll spend more time worrying about that if and when we ever even start getting the ball rolling in the right direction. Right now I’m just trying to keep the ball from crushing me and others under its weight. We still need to push it up hill, not worry so much about what happens when we’re on the down slope.

  128. Robert Capozzi

    P & A, yes, it is possible to tote a machine gun onto a subway and to own a private nuke without hurting anyone, agreed.

    I would say that a thought system that allows for private nukes or auto-toting on the F train is on its face flawed. If NOIF is the only standard, if there are NO other considerations, then loopy-sounding results pop out.

    It’d be neat of things were that simple and binary, but for me – at least – they ain’t.

    p: I said if you are pushing for more restrictions I’ll be on board to stop you, and if you are pushing to cut them I’ll be on board to help you.

    me: Well, in my case, I am doing both and neither. Mostly, I’d say, I’m re-framing the issue, taking a L position that at once strengthens RKBA and in some ways could weaken it. I think it’s tragic that in some places guns are all but banned. OTOH, I find that gun zealots seem hellbent on overstating their case for effect. That the L community seems prone to such zealotry is no surprise to me, given the limitations of binary NOIF-ism.

    In my judgment, that is the key reason why L-ism as currently (still) practiced is largely ineffectual. Liberty is a powerful idea, but it is shackled by this most unfortunate uni-dimensionalism.

  129. Be Rational

    Guns on the subway, etc:

    The division comes down to this: private owners of private property have the right to impose many restrictions that governments should be prohibited from imposing.

    If you are adamant that making the subways safer includes banning automatic weapons, or all weapons – then work to get the subways de-nationalized.

    Win/win.

    Free market subways: lower cost, better service, cleaner, safer.

    Private owners of subways would install elevator style saftey doors to keep passengers from exposure to the tracks, they would have both armed and unarmed security personnel in place, they would prohibit many dangerous weapons, flamable liquids, smoking, etc.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    BR , if you are suggesting that Ls should advocate privatizing everything (or nearly everything) in the public square as a remedy to Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, my feedback is that seems too out of left field to be strong rhetoric or as part of the general case for maximizing liberty. With the theater shooting happening on private property, that suggestion seems esp tin eared.

    The case for privatizing (most) public goods is broader than the specific issue of what weapons might be inherently unacceptably risky generally or specifically in some venues.

  131. Green_Liberal

    Paulie at 90—

    I’m skeptical that the Swiss allow guns in classrooms…do you have a link on that (sorry if you’ve already posted and i missed it)?

    As far as Israel goes it’s hardly unreasonable for highly trained teachers to be allowed to conceal carry, given the circumstances in that nation (actual prolonged war).

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

    I think the lesson of Switzerland should have a much different role in gun control discussions. The lesson of Switzerland, imho, is not that so much that widespread guns are good, but rather that a professional standing army is bad. From an ‘original intent’ perspective, what the founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment was a “well regulated militia” system like Switzerland, where there is no standing army (well, these days 5% of the Swiss army is professional). The purpose of the military weapons in Swiss homes is the defense of the Republic rather than the defense of the individual against nefarious state actors.

    It’s also important to note that the Swiss military is a primarily peaceful and honorable institution, unlike the United States military, so military culture has a far less detrimental effect on the culture at large.

    As far as guns in schools go, the point that needs to be driven home is children are very curious about guns. Guns and gun violence are glorified on their tv screens and many of their toys are inspired by guns. Once children become aware there is a gun in the classroom, then there is a risk of a theft or an accident or worse. Administrators are paid to avoid these kinds of risks.

  132. Be Rational

    @143 What I’m recommending is that we recognize that many problems come from public ownership and that we not advocate the loss of liberty as a solution when privatization is the solution. So, we work for privatization.

    You are absolutely correct that there are broader reasons, many reasons and more convincing reasons for privatization. So, we can focus on those reasons and push for privatization recognizing that this is a better answer for reducing violence as well.

    Since it is presently illegal to own a machine gun, and there is no way we could win a battle to both legalize machine guns and allow open carry of machine guns on government owned subway systems at the present time (and you may not even agree that we should anyway); and since private owership of the subways is a better option for all the other reasons you have alluded to, and since that is a battle we plausibly could win; and since the private owners could then appropriately decide the question of allowing legal weapons to be carried; I suggest that the LP shouldn’t waste resources on advocating private open carry of machine guns on subways and should devote itself to better causes of which privatization and all of its benefits could be one and the Right to Bear Arms in a more general sense including keeping semi-auto and so-called assault weapons legal as they are today being both principled and better positioning could be another.

  133. Robert Capozzi

    BR,with this article, the LP is taking an extra-platform position. Being for the right to keep and bear is different from ADVOCATING keeping and bearing. Advocating keeping and bearing arms in public schools is not something that the platform talks about iirc, and it echoes the NRA position.

    I think that’s a mistake, optically and in theory, since I think the property rights implications have been overlooked. Some jurisdictions may CHOOSE to arm teachers, but 2A bearing rights are bounded overarching property rights

  134. Robert Capozzi

    More…

    I don’t have a position on what can be legally kept and borne on private property, but it’s understable that autos are outlawed nationwide as inherently dangerous, yet semis should be protected on private property.

  135. Be Rational

    We’ll have to disagree a bit. I favor legal private ownership of automatic weapons and machine guns.

    As for public schools, I would favor training and arming selected members of the staff in each school, this would be better than adding an armed police officer or armed security guard, but I’m not in favor of opening up government schools for anyone to walk in armed. Of course, it should be decided by each school district, not by the Feds, and I would definitely advocate privatization of the schools as a far better alternative primarily because it would result in better educational outcomes at lower cost. Then each school could decide on its own protection and safety program without government screwing it up.

  136. Dave Terry

    RC (68) “Are you saying that…only states have used nukes, therefore MORE states AND individuals should procure them?”

    No, I was making a clear distinction between states and individuals. I don’t see how individual
    persons could manufature, store, transport and/ or deliver nuclear devises anyway.

    However, it IS clear that when there is potential conflict between nations the more balanced their
    arsenal of weapons is the more likely they will find other methods of dealing with conflict: such
    as the U.S. vs U.S.S.R. or China vs India or India
    vs Pakistan, or Israel vs Iran.

    Oh wait a minute, Iran doesn’t have nukes. (horns and sirens) That’s right Iran needs to have nukes to balance the aggressive tendencies of Israel

  137. Robert Capozzi

    149 DT, thanks for clarifying. If you are a NAP advocate, I would think you’d be feeling tremendous conflict about your view here. Near as I can tell, all WMD are built with “stolen money,” therefore are “immoral”…do I have that right?

    I would think, then, that the only “principled” position is that any state action would only lead to your condemning it as “immoral.” Whether a state feels the need to nuke up in the face of perceived threats would be immaterial to the syllogism.

    All states are aggressive and aggressors, if I understand the NAP absolutist thought system. Picking and choosing between aggressor/states would be beside the point. How can there be “balance” in such a set up? I’d think that – even on a relative basis – Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan would be the aggressed/aggressors that would feel the need for nuking up….

  138. Andy

    I just thought of another benefit to it being legal for people to walk around with machine guns. It will make people with big government tendencies uncomfortable, therefore it will encourage them to not come to the Libertarian Zone.

    We could have a libertarian society right now if all of the statists would move to Europe or Asia or somewhere else.

  139. Robert Capozzi

    a, good one. Since 99.99% of the pop. is “statist,” the few thousand machine-gun-toters might have a great time spraying bullets in ghost towns coast to coast! ;)

  140. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 13, 2013 at 7:02 am

    a, good one. Since 99.99% of the pop. is “statist,” the few thousand machine-gun-toters might have a great time spraying bullets in ghost towns coast to coast! ;)”

    I don’t think the number of people who’d have to leave for us to have a libertarian country would be that high. I was thinking maybe if 1/3 or so of the people left, basically all of the hardcore Democrats and Republicans.

  141. Robert Capozzi

    a, ever interesting, provocative. I’d swag that maybe 10% of the population believes that there’s a right to tote machine guns, with maybe 8 points going to “hardcore Rs,” with maybe a point to Ds and a point to Ls and others.

    Maybe 0.5% believe in the right to private nukes, with maybe 80% of them being L.

    Do you know of polling data on these matters? As a Bowash corridor-type, I admit that my sense of things is skewed, but I just don’t see these views as being anything remotely rising to the mainstream of Ameri can thought in 2013. Still, if there IS – what – a third of the pop. that’s OK with machine gun toting in public, I would like to know that so that I might adjust my scoping of the matter.

    Or were you kidding?

  142. Robert Capozzi

    A, as for your video, the “purpose” of 2A is whatever you want it to be, for you. There are lots and lots of reasons to protect the RKBA, but there are also reasons to ban the possession of inherently dangerous weapons, and many reasons to enforce property rights over where certain weapons are toted.

    I’ve still not heard an actual counter, which tells me that you don’t have one.

  143. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 13, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    A, as for your video, the ‘purpose’ of 2A is whatever you want it to be, for you.”

    Ugggg! The purpose of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear if you read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it.

  144. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “but there are also reasons to ban the possession of inherently dangerous weapons,”

    A car or a tractor trailers are dangerous weapons. A canister of gasoline is a dangerous weapon. Chemicals which can be found in a lot of house holds (such as bleach) are dangerous weapons. A person’s body is a dangerous weapon (especially if the person is strong and is trained in martial arts).

    “and many reasons to enforce property rights over where certain weapons are toted”

    If we had an actual libertarian society, there’d be very few places were a person would not be able to carry weapons.

    I don’t consider your version where a person can only carry weapons when they are at the their own home to be libertarian. Even in a libertarians society there’d have to be easements, and the rights of individuals would have to be respected in places where the public has access. Just because a person leaves their home to venture out in the world it does not mean that they give up all of their rights. The right to self defense (including self defense with a weapon) is one of the most fundamental rights that there is.

    You seem to think that once a person leaves their home that they don’t have any rights. That would not be a very libertarian society in which to live. Say a person leaves their home and walks to a store. They walk down a sidewalk and enter the store parking lot. Along the way, they get attacked by a thug with a bat. Say the thug with the bat happens to be the owner of the store. The thug with the bat then proceeds to anally rape the person. Would this be OK, since they did it on their property? After all, going by your line of reasoning, a person gives up their rights once they leave their property, The person who owns the store could say that it is their store, so they can do whatever they want, including hitting people with baseball bats and then anally raping them.

    If you don’t carry your rights with you then you don’t really have any rights.

  145. Andy

    “155 Robert Capozzi // Jan 13, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    a, ever interesting, provocative. I’d swag that maybe 10% of the population believes that there’s a right to tote machine guns, with maybe 8 points going to ‘hardcore Rs,’ with maybe a point to Ds and a point to Ls and others.”

    A large percentage of the population is apolitical, and/or they “go whichever way the wind blows.” If libertarians ever came to “power” (I put this in quotes, because libertarians only want the power for people to live free) they would just go with the flow.

    I think that the people who would actively oppose freedoms – such as the freedom to carry a machine gun – are only the type of people who are anti-freedom activists, most of whom are in the Democratic and Republican parties.

    The real battle is not libertarians against the rest of the public, but rather, libertarians against the people who control big government and/or people who are activists for big government. Most people are not activists. .

  146. Robert Capozzi

    A, yes, of course there is ALWAYS a right to self defense. Similarly, there are – or should be – property rights, including the right to exclude persons or objects from one’s property.

    I would think this is non-controversial.

    On YOUR property, you might welcome someone toting a machine gun and carrying a dirty bomb with deadly poisons that, if detonated, would kill all life in a 5 mile radius.

    What your neighbors might do about the former is to me an open question. I would, however, not be surprised if your neighbors felt your visitor with the dirty bomb constituted a clear and present danger. Don’t be surprised if they take action to subdue your visitor. In that process, consider being mindful of your own welfare, as harboring inherent threats is a dangerous business.

    As for the Framers opinions of the meaning of 2A, I missed the part about Madison opining about dirty bombs and machine guns. This is no surprise to me, since they did not exist in the 18th century.

    We may know a bit about the thought process of SOME of the Framers on SOME of the words in the Constitution. What we don’t know is the full intent of the collective at the time. (Of course, we can NEVER know that, since 100% accurate mind reading is probably impossible, especially of numerous people simultaneously.)

    Do you disagree? If so, really?

    I certainly missed the parts in the Constitution about “easements”…near as I can tell, you are simply making this up. Even Rothbard said you don’t have a right to shout fire in a private theater, so by extension you also don’t have the right to tote that supersedes private property rights.

  147. Robert Capozzi

    A, good for Rose! What is your intent in sharing it? It seems utterly beside the point of our discussion.

    (If Rose said I can tote this anywhere I want, that might be a different matter, but he didn’t.)

  148. paulie Post author

    RC

    Which of the Bill of Rights, if any, should apply on government “public” property? And why? Do the “owners” of this property have the same right to restrict our right to speak/express ourselves, worship, assemble, etc., as they would when we are guests in someone else’s private home or business? After all, I don’t expect the right to kneel to Mecca or wear a T-shirt you don’t like or say things you find objectionable etc if I’m in your living room. If I decide my home is alcohol free and you can’t possess any at any time while you are there, I expect that all I have to do is say so and my word is law. Do you really want government to have that same level of control over all “public places”? Do you feel that there any ways in which government may use the powers that property owners are normally believed to have over their property that are not legitimate?

    I mean, property owners have every right to regulate how we can dress, talk, behave, etc. on their property, who can stay and who has to leave. What about government – same rights of property ownership over all public places including streets, roadways, commuter transit, parks, etc?

  149. paulie Post author

    As for the Framers opinions of the meaning of 2A, I missed the part about Madison opining about dirty bombs and machine guns. This is no surprise to me, since they did not exist in the 18th century.

    Neither did the internet. Which of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights extend to technology that has been developed subsequent to the 18th century?

    I certainly missed the parts in the Constitution about “easements”…near as I can tell, you are simply making this up. Even Rothbard said you don’t have a right to shout fire in a private theater, so by extension you also don’t have the right to tote that supersedes private property rights.

    See Amendments 9-10 and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easements_in_English_law

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_property_law

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement

  150. Robert Capozzi

    P, I’d need specific questions about specific cases of usage of public property. I’ve already told StarChild that, no, I don’t think there’s a right to have sex on a public street. You?

    I think there’s a right to assembly, but to me that doesn’t mean that the Communist Party can block Wall Street off to shut down the NYSE.

    Personally, I’m for maximizing private liberties on public property, but ON PUBLIC PROPERTY I am OK with reasonable regulation by the locality or state that is consistent with maintaining domestic tranquility. Schtupping in the street seems like something that would be reasonable to prohibit.

    I do see the Internet as being private property.

  151. paulie Post author

    I’d need specific questions about specific cases of usage of public property.

    I don’t think we need a specific list, nor do I think a comprehensive list is possible, but I’d like you to explain your theory in general terms better. I think my questions were specific enough for that purpose.

    I’ve already told StarChild

    There’s no capitalization in the middle of Starchild’s name.

    I think there’s a right to assembly, but to me that doesn’t mean that the Communist Party can block Wall Street off to shut down the NYSE.

    Blocking is one thing (since it stops other people from being able to pass through), but do they have the right to wear communist t-shirts or hold a communist meeting in a public place? Because they don’t have that right on your front lawn or in your living room unless you say they do, correct?

    Does government have all the rights to do with “its” property as it pleases as a private property owner does with theirs or not?
    I’d like to understand if you see any difference at all between the two, and if so, what.

    ON PUBLIC PROPERTY I am OK with reasonable regulation by the locality or state

    How would you know or prove if they aren’t reasonable?

    I do see the Internet as being private property.

    The internet, in this analogy, is like the gun. It is a technology that didn’t exist in the 18th century, much as AR-15 did not, to be used for a purpose that did exist in the 18th century (free expression in the former case, mutual self-defense from tyranny in the latter).

    If the right of self-defense is deemed limited by the technology of the 18th century, what about the right of expression?

  152. Robert Capozzi

    166 p, I have indicated that, no, there’s no “right” to schtupp in public. I again ask, Do you?

    Avoid that as much as you care to.

    As I indicated to A, there’s ALWAYS a right to self defense. The means of self defense are limited by property rights by the property owner and whether the means represent an inherent risk to the community. I lack the expertise

  153. Robert Capozzi

    …to offer you a brightline answer on what constitutes an inherent risk, though WMD certainly seem to qualify.

  154. paulie Post author

    I haven’t avoided anything. I replied directly to that question in the thread where you originally posted it. I can no longer remember if it was this one or which one it was, and don’t feel like looking it up.

  155. paulie Post author

    You on the other hand haven’t even tried answering most of the questions I asked in this thread this morning. There are several of them. Please answer each full question in its original form separately, even if the answer is “I don’t know.”

    I’m not going to assume you are actively trying to avoid them. Maybe you’re trying to think through and formulate your answers, or just haven’t gotten to it yet.

  156. Robert Capozzi

    I don’t recall your public schtuppy answer.

    I am on a smartphone, so I will get later on all your questions.

  157. paulie Post author

    it’s understable that autos are outlawed nationwide as inherently dangerous

    Even on private property? That is not understandable at all to me, if by understandable you mean justified.

    I also don’t understand what

    the ‘purpose’ of 2A is whatever you want it to be, for you.

    Means. So it’s like a Rohrshach test? In that case, does it really serve any purpose at all?

  158. paulie Post author

    with this article, the LP is taking an extra-platform position. Being for the right to keep and bear is different from ADVOCATING keeping and bearing.

    We’re only advocating for the right to keep and bear arms, in this case for the right of school staff to do so at work.

    and it echoes the NRA position.

    The NRA position is different; they want police in every school, something which would cost the taxpayers a lot of money and then you would have cops hanging around schools with little to do all day except seek out and possibly create problems. It would also help to teach kids a “police state” mentality.

    I think that’s fundamentally different from our position.

    Some jurisdictions may CHOOSE to arm teachers,

    Not under the federal gun free school zones act, as I understand it.

  159. paulie Post author

    Since it is presently illegal to own a machine gun, and there is no way we could win a battle to both legalize machine guns and allow open carry of machine guns on government owned subway systems at the present time (and you may not even agree that we should anyway); and since private owership of the subways is a better option for all the other reasons you have alluded to, and since that is a battle we plausibly could win; and since the private owners could then appropriately decide the question of allowing legal weapons to be carried; I suggest that the LP shouldn’t waste resources on advocating private open carry of machine guns on subways and should devote itself to better causes of which privatization and all of its benefits could be one and the Right to Bear Arms in a more general sense including keeping semi-auto and so-called assault weapons legal as they are today being both principled and better positioning could be another.

    Agreed.

  160. Robert Capozzi

    p: but do they have the right to wear communist t-shirts or hold a communist meeting in a public place?

    me: In a sense, no, on the shirt, or really more properly with clothing or other behaviors on someone else’s property. If property rights are what we say they are, then the property owner can dictate behavior. For ex., the property owner can require a visitor to WEAR clothes. I think it’d be absurd to deny public access to a CP t-shirt wearer, of course. The public has the prerogative to require clothes to be worn in public. Assembly is an explicit right in the Constitution, so that’s about as sacrosanct as it gets. Still, the practice is that states and localities regulate the time of day and specific venues where the assembly happens. That, it seems to me, is reasonable, as the Constitution’s purpose is in part to ensure domestic tranquility.

    p: Because they don’t have that right on your front lawn or in your living room unless you say they do, correct?

    me: Were it so simple! No, since assembly is carved out and since assembly certainly implies to me “assembly in a public place,” you are overreading my view.

    p: Does government have all the rights to do with “its” property as it pleases as a private property owner does with theirs or not?

    me: Aside from the assembly carve out, no differences spring to mind, no. As a citizen, my default position is that public property allow for maximum individual liberty. If a state regulation said, “No one can wear red in public places,” I’d think that’s really stupid, but from a narrow rights perspective, I can’t say that government – acting as in effect the agent of the citizenry – could not have such a rule.

    p: Which of the Bill of Rights, if any, should apply on government “public” property? And why? Do the “owners” of this property have the same right to restrict our right to speak/express ourselves, worship, assemble, etc., as they would when we are guests in someone else’s private home or business?

    me: Assembly is sufficiently carved out. Unreasonable search and seizure would be, too. Speech largely is, although that doesn’t mean that a certain L can walk up to people on public streets suggesting what he’d do with rebar is protected. Religion is interesting…could the State ban a person wearing, say, a crucifix or a star of David from a strictly property rights perspective? I hate to say yes, and I don’t see that happening, but my Inner Rothbard would have to say yes.

    This all gets a bit loopy, but so does the alternative reducio…public schtuppy, rebar threats, etc. It’d be neat if somehow the spirit of the B of R could be codified – like assembly is – to carve out many private liberties on public property.

    p: Do you really want government to have that same level of control over all “public places”?

    me: Your best question so far. NOOOOO! Then again, this is not about what I “want.” If it was, I want the government to be tiny, and for most public property to be privatized. This is an “in the mean time” experiment.

    I think I got all your questions…now, please, refresh our memories…is there a right to public schtuppy (between consenting adults or some approximation) or not, in the Book of Paulie?

  161. Robert Capozzi

    p, btw, I found THIS language especially challenging to the precise, Randian/Rothbardian mindset: “but easements may be implied where they are necessary, or would be reasonably expected to be held by a land owner, an approach which is not altogether uncontroversial, and has been the subject of recent reform proposals.”

  162. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Personally, I’m for maximizing private liberties on public property, but ON PUBLIC PROPERTY I am OK with reasonable regulation by the locality or state that is consistent with maintaining domestic tranquility.”

    So am I to take it that you are in favor of tyranny, just as long as it comes form a local government rather than a national government?

    Who is to say that the local regulations are “reasonable”?

    I have seen numerous instances where so called “reasonable” local regulations were used to prohibit 1st amendment activities.

  163. Andy

    I just had an idea for a game. I’m going to call it Let’s Box In Robert Capozzi.

    Here’s how the game works. Let’s buy up all of the land that surrounds Robert Capozzi’s house. If there are any public streets that go by his house, let’s to whatever government agency is in charge of those streets and let’s get them to privatize them and sell them to us.

    So we now own all of the land that surrounds Robert Capozzi’s house. Now we aren’t going to interfere with what Robert Capozzi does on his land, but we are going to put up a fence around the dividing line between Robert Capozzi’s land and our land, and we are not going to let Robert Capozzi trespass on our land. If Robert Capozzi wants to leave his land, he’s going to have to be airlifted out (I don’t know if there’s anything we can do to keep him out of our airspace).

    Does this sound unreasonable? Well, maybe it is, so here’s what we will do. We will open up a gate and allow Robert Capozzi to pass through our land, but in order to pass through he’s got to pay us $100,000 each time (coming and going), and to make things more interesting, we are going to require Robert Capozzi to walk through our land (no automobiles), and we are going to have wild animals roaming about this land. Let’s say some lions, tigers, wolves, etc… One more provision, Robert Capozzi is barred from carrying any guns or any other type of weapons.

    So how about it? We bought this land with our own money and it is our private property, so we should be able to do whatever we want, right?

  164. Robert Capozzi

    a, I can’t respond to what’s reasonable or unreasonable without specifics. Just as the common law has evolved to include the notion of easements, so has it evolved the notion of the reasonable man.

    Say, for ex., Starchild started the Church of Public Schtuppy, (a derivation of the term schtupp, which is Yiddish for sex…wtf, indeed!). The Public Schtuppists also believe that end is near, so their sacrament is to have orgies on the busiest street corner in a 50 mile radius. The spent, refactoring Public Schtuppists were obliged by the Church’s tenant to take up a bullhorn, imploring passersby to join in with the chant, “The End is Near, might as well Schtupp Now!!!”

    Some may find this unreasonable, even harassing, behavior. The Public Schtuppists could have their orgy indoors, or at least outdoors in an isolated place and exercise their religion, yet their faith would clearly clash with overwhelmingly held community desires for appropriate behavior on their collective property.

    Do you see it differently, A?

  165. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    From a VERY strict NAP perspective, the Public Schtuppists are not aggressing, arguably. Yet, I would be so bold as to say that these PSOs (Public Schtuppy Orgies) could be banned on public property, despite 1A. IMO, they could NOT be banned if they were conducted in private.

  166. paulie Post author

    RC

    Our last discussion of the right to public coitus was in the comments of http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/01/libertarian-party-sues-three-cities-in-kansas-over-open-carry-bans and above at http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/01/lp-blog-sign-the-petition-to-defend-schools-by-ending-failed-gun-free-zones/#comment-808583……I’ll have to wait until I get back from a road trip next month for additional discussion of your remarks here.

  167. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Say, for ex., Starchild started the Church of Public Schtuppy, (a derivation of the term schtupp, which is Yiddish for sex…wtf, indeed!).”

    I’ve been all over the country and I’ve talked to many, many people, and I don’t ever recall encountering the term “schtupp” in my life, and yes, I have interacted with many Jewish people around the country (as well as any other group of people you can think of).

    “The Public Schtuppists also believe that end is near, so their sacrament is to have orgies on the busiest street corner in a 50 mile radius. The spent, refactoring Public Schtuppists were obliged by the Church’s tenant to take up a bullhorn, imploring passersby to join in with the chant, ‘The End is Near, might as well Schtupp Now!!!’”

    Well, one question would be are the Public Schtuppist blocking pedestrian or automobile traffic? I do not advocate blocking the flow of traffic, and in these cases there would have to be some type permit process or something like that (and of course, there’d have to be a solid case that they were actually blocking traffic, because I’ve seen many instances where there were false accusations of blocking traffic that were intended to shut down free speech activities).

    I tend to fall on the side of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

    Years ago I was visiting a lake and I saw what appeared to be a male and a female schtupping in public. This was on a beach part of the lake and they were laying on a towel and they had another towel wrapped over themselves. I was maybe around 12 but it did not take a biology expert to figure out what they were doing. They later took their “schtupping” out to the water. People were walking by but nobody said anything.

  168. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Jan 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    a, I can’t respond to what’s reasonable or unreasonable without specifics.”

    What more specifics do you need which I did not provide in the hypothetical scenario above to which you are referencing.

  169. Andy

    I will say that I would be opposed to people defecating or urinating on public sidewalks. Why? Because it is a sanitation issue, and I’m sure that myself and most other people would not want to step in it.

  170. Andy

    I attended a festival in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago called the Comm Fest, which stood for Community Festival. I don’t know what sparked this, but there were several (not a majority, but more than a tiny handful) women who walked around at the festival with their breasts exposed. They were walking around with nothing to cover their torsos. Some of them were pleasing to the eye, others, not so much, but whatever the case, they walked around topless and nobody made a big deal about it.

  171. Be Rational

    @190 Ah, yes, the Right to Bare Arms … and upper torsos …

    “Schtup” is an old term, I’ve heard it my whole life.

    schtup/?t?p/ [shtoo?p]
    verb, schtupped, schtup·ping. Slang: Vulgar.
    verb (used with object)
    1. to have sexual intercourse with.
    verb (used without object)
    2. to engage in sexual intercourse.
    Also, shtup.

    ————————————————————

    Origin:
    < Yiddish shtupn literally, to push (in), press

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schtup?s=t

  172. paulie Post author

    Yeah, I’ve had this conversation with Andy before. For whatever reason, he has never heard a lot of words that have made it into English from Yiddish. I always take this words for granted as being parted of regular American English, not really Jewish anymore – shtupp, shmeckel, shlong, shmutz, shmeer and so on. Seems kind of weird to me that someone would live in the US their whole life and have never heard them.

  173. Andy

    “paulie // Jan 16, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Yeah, I’ve had this conversation with Andy before. For whatever reason, he has never heard a lot of words that have made it into English from Yiddish.”

    Not true. I’m familiar with at least some words/phrases that have made it from Yiddish to English, just as I’m familiar with some words/phrases that have made it from Spainish or Japanese or whatever other language that have made it to common English usage.

    I just did not happen to be familiar with that particular word in question.

    It’s kind of like the term “schlep” which I had never heard until I went to Los Angeles, California in 1998 (which was not my first time there).

  174. paulie Post author

    I can’t remember all the specifics, but I remember using a few common words like that which you said you never heard before.

  175. Andy

    “paulie // Jan 16, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    I can’t remember all the specifics, but I remember using a few common words like that which you said you never heard before.”

    I may not have heard those particular Yiddish words/phrases before, but I had heard others that had worked their way into general English usage.

    There are a bunch of words or phrases that are not familiar with to lots of people who speak the same language.

  176. Paulie

    Yep, I seem to recall a former associate of ours who claimed to have never heard some common words, phrases and/or cultural references. Again I don’t remember which ones, but you probably know who I am referring to. And no, I don’t want to talk about him, LOL

  177. Andy

    There are all kinds of groups and sub-groups from all over the place that create new words or phrases or who bring new words or phrases into common usage in the English language.

  178. Andy

    Some words or phrases are more common in certain regions of the country than in others. Such as, I don’t recall hearing “I’m all set” that much (if at all) until I went to Massachusetts for the first time in 2001.

  179. Robert Capozzi

    185 br, andy, and p, BR asks a great question, one I’ve sat with and consulted my Inner Rothbard all day. Could the Feds, state or local governments ban flag burning on the property they are agents of the people of? First, let’s set aside environment or safety concerns, as burning one flag seems de minimis on that score. Should we view flag burning as a protected form of speech, or is a behavior like the Church of Public Schtuppy’s sacrament of public orgies? And is flag burning “fighting words” or does it “incite rioting”? The latter two don’t seem to apply, as I don’t think that flag burning has led to fights or riots in a significant way. Certainly the Public Schtuppists CAN talk about public schtupping, which would have nationwide protection as both freedom of speech and religion. The act of public schtuppery, however, seems offensive to enough of the citizenry as to be an unreasonable exercise of religion.

    Interestingly, Andy does acknowledge that SOME behaviors, e.g., public defecation, could be prohibited, and yet presumably it would be OK, if unseemly, in one’s yard, out of the siteline of one’s neighbors. (This, however, might be an instance where the state might have some jurisdiction on sanitation grounds.)

    As a demonstrative form of speech, burning a flag does not offend me personally, and I’d say it deserves nationwide free-speech protections, although I am open to alternative ways of looking at this one.

    To Andy, no, the tenet of the Church of the Public Schtuppists is not to block the flow of traffic. Myself, if I saw a public orgy, my reaction would likely first be lurid interest, and then to look away. Still, it does seem to not behavior that the public needs to tolerate IN PUBLIC.

    So, we disagree. You and Starchild could attempt to add a plank to the platform on the right to schtup in public, but my guess is that that one would fail. I would say that if it DID pass, then my tolerance for extremisms like “cult of the omnipotent state” would then be overflowing vis a vis the LP. Of course, that’s just me, so if you guys feel strongly about public schtuppery, maybe give it a shot. ;)

    As for P’s previous position on public schtuppery and other public-property-rights conundrums, I agree with your earlier statement: “Short of that, I think devolving the level of the decisions on what is or is not acceptable on particular government property should be as local as possible, allowing different communities to set their own standards and for people to be able to migrate more easily to areas which have a majority that is more like-minded with them.”

    That sounds like you agree that public property CAN have rules of behavior like private property, perhaps subject to some carve outs like assembly, which itself is subject to some regulation, e.g., can’t have a demonstration in a residential neighborhood at 3 in the morning.

  180. Be Rational

    Why would a demonstration in a neighbothood at 3 am be automatically precluded; say a silent, candlelight vigil to honor some victim in protest against some act or individual ?

    Seems to me that as long as the protest didn’t disturb the peaceful quiet of the night, it should be allowed. No problem with this one.

  181. Be Rational

    What about this guy RC? Private free speech rights, not on public property, community standards, now off to prision:

    “After two mistrials, an adult film producer was sentenced to four years in prison Wednesday after he was convicted of violating federal obscenity laws by selling movies depicting bestiality and other extreme fetishes.

    U.S. District Judge George King gave Ira Isaacs the sentence and ordered him to pay more than $10,000 in fines and court costs.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/porn-producer-sentenced-obscenity-case-221308476.html

  182. Robert Capozzi

    br 200, good point…not necessarily automatically. If a vigil can be held on public property in a neighborhood and domestic tranquility can be maintained, that seems like something that might be allowable useage of the commons. OTOH, if the state agents prohibit it as too risky to disturb domestic tranquility, I can understand. The information costs of discerning whether what is proposed may be too high.

    re: 201, I’m a near-absolutist on private, non-aggressive acts like a film about fetishes. The film, however, may be evidence of a crime, but the film itself is not a crime, as I see it. Showing such a film on public property seems bannable to me, like public schtuppy on public property.

  183. Andy

    Here is something very interesting. It is now possible to print guns, including so called “assault rifles” on 3D printers. It sounds like something out of science fiction like Star Trek, but it is not reality.

    This is an interview about it from Glenn Beck’s TV show:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkX8sWSxNQ

    I can see it now. A few years down the road many people will own 3D printers, and they will be able to print machine guns on them. Before going to work in the morning some of them print up machine plastic machine guns on their 3D printers while drinking their morning coffee and eating a bowl of cereal. They then head to the subway station with their plastic machine guns in their back packs or briefcases, or under trench coats. Robert Capozzi happens to be riding the subway at the same time and he sees a man with trench coat walk by where he is seated and the coat opens up slightly and Robert Capozzi thinks he sees a machine gun. Then a man sits in a seat across from him and opens up a briefcase to look for some papers and this time Robert Capozzi clearly sees a machine gun in the briefcase. Then a young woman, possibly a college student, sits next to Robert Capozzi. While seated, the woman opens up her backpack to look for a text book as she is studying for a test. While looking for the text book she pulls out a machine gun and sits it on her laps.

    Then Robert Capozzi turns into Robert Crapozzi as he sits there with a stunned look on his face and starts breathing heavy while crapping in his pants.

  184. Deran

    @201, The fellow should be in prison, not for obscenity, but for abusing those animals in the porn he made. Unless he can show agreements accepted by those non-human animals that hey consented to the sex, than the fellow is an abuser and should spend time in prison, that justice for the non-humans came via a stupid obscenity law, well, that’s just luck. As long as this man suffers in prison, and loses enough money to hurt him, I’m happy.

    It is my understanding that libertarian capitalists are all about consent, rather than the bogeyman of “coercive state”. How can those animals have consented? And no, I am not a vegan. Industrial farming is a whole other topic, especially as far as the industrial use of non-humans, but eating meat is evolutionary. Sexual fetishes are not.

  185. Be Rational

    @204 So you are ascribing rights to animals, but you do not include the right not to be eaten and therefore do not impute a right to life per se to animals.

    Interesting that you think animals must consent to sex but not to being eaten.

    Most humans cannot yet agree on what rights humans have.

  186. Robert Capozzi

    203 a, why make it personal, hypothetical and hyperbolic? You think there’s a right to tote machine guns anywhere except perhaps on private property, depending on release forms and easements. I find that position unworkable and certainly not sellable, and I certainly disagree.

    I invite you to leave it at that.

  187. Robert Capozzi

    more….

    Something that I don’t think I’ve made clear: Having a law prohibiting something doesn’t mean that that prohibited behavior will NEVER happen.

    If the collective or its agent determines that, say, toting machine guns in the subway is just too risky and they ban them there, it doesn’t mean that some loon definitely would not tote in the tube. The loon might be “on notice” that this is unacceptable behavior, but do it anyway.

    Grok, A?

  188. Deran

    @205, Some non-humans are carnivores or omnivores and they eat other non-humans, and sometimes humans, as a part of metabolic existence/survival. Fetishes do not provide biological sustenance. Food is different from human sexual fetishes.

    As omnivores we can minimize our eating of other animals, rather than supersize the quantity of meat we eat.

    With non-humans they do not have supermarkets and such to acquire food . They need to eat what they can get.

    But the main point is that eating otehr animals for food is different from using non-humans in non-consensual sexual pleasure for the human.

  189. Be Rational

    Sometimes other carnivores eat humans without their consent. Likewise , some animals use humans for their sexual pleasure without their consent.

    It gets back to assigning rights to animals. Humans have to decide what rights to ascribe to animals, if any.

    Since this is a thread about gun rights, should animals be able to carry machine guns to defend themselves from hungry humans?

  190. Deran

    It seems illogical, based on current science, to think that “rights” is a human construct.

    More and more, through out the more developed sentient animals, we humans are beginning to understand that among these other sentient and highly socialized animals that they too have notions of fairness, compassion, justice etc. Because successful societies of thinking feeling creatures are most successful when they use fairness, compassion and eat meat. So, it seems to me that what we humans are trying to claim as our own, are really extrapolations on more basic animal desires and interests.

    And as far as nonhumans carrying firearms to protect themselves against us, I’m in to it. Bring on the planet of the apes! I, for one, welcome our Bonobo overlords!

Leave a Reply