Posted by Alanius on 11/04/09 4:17 PM [Older: Health Care Reply to Socialist]

People fall apart in two camps: those that oppose gun freedom and those for it. It's very difficult to find anyone on the middle road.

Libertarians recognize that any order in society exists because the threat of justified aggression keeps most criminal aggression at bay. Non-libertarians see the fire-arm as the source of all societal chaos. They're both correct. Well, except that explosives and stabbing weapons can also contribute to chaos.

This paradox exists because there is a distinction between the responsible use of a gun and the irresponsible use of a gun. It is the responsible use of a fire-weapon that brings criminality down to a minimum. Correspondingly, it is the irresponsible use of a fire-weapon which is criminality.

Non-libertarians recognize this. There is hardly a single one that would propose a law banning all guns. They just want to eliminate the irresponsible use of guns. In their eyes, this is equivalent to banning all guns, except for the state. They trust the state and its officials to use them responsibly.

And here's what makes libertarians different: libertarians do not trust the state. And indeed, why should they? Hasn't history proved time and again that the state does nothing but trample on the rights of human beings, both in foreign countries and at home? And assuming noble intentions, hasn't the state proved time and again that it cannot be efficient in anything it does?

The question should not be, "why do libertarians support gun freedom?" The real question is, "why do non-libertarians support gun restriction?" And the answer is quite simple: they are blinded by their dogmatic trust in the state.

[original blog post]

Posted 11/04/09 4:24 PM PhilRidley London, United Kingdom

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII Could it be, that Switzerland remains neutral during WWII because all Swiss men must own and learn to use a firearm? An army can only fight another army. Enemies, domestic and foreign are IMPOTENT against a decentralized, well-armed, well-trained militia. America's founding fathers knew this, and they learned it from their experience of Britain. The British Bill of Rights 1689 informed the 2nd Amendment. It says the following about standing armies and the right to bear arms, clearly, we now need a bill of rights to protect us against acts of Parliament that extinguish our natural rights, but you will get the gist: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp - That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; - That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law - UK Gun club list from National Rifle association: http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/links/links.asp?site=NRA&cat=4

Posted 11/06/09 04:12 AM Bill01234 Woodstock, GA

Exactly why we need to get out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every man, woman, and child over the age of six is armed with an AK-47 over there.