"I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns."
Then, how do they plan to enforce the law with respect to people that they know are non-compliant? Without enforcement, the law is moot.
"These were the same views Reagan had"
I do not respect Reagan as a small government conservative/libertarian. He raised taxes in one way or another nearly every year that he was in office and ramped up the War on Drugs, among other things. In addition, I do not agree with Reagan's position on guns.
"And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun."
Background checks are already in place. However, there should not be and there is no need for a national database of gun owners.
"And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots."
I am aware of what the 2nd Amendment says, namely -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Translated from a historical context, it says - "So that a militia may be raised quickly from the populace in order to preserve the freedom of the State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be encroached upon."
The 2nd Amendment does not include - "shall not be infringed unless it becomes politically expedient to do so."
Further, regarding your statement on muskets, is your freedom of speech only protected in transactions written on paper or spoken verbally? For instance, is your freedom of speech not protected on the internet?
The 2nd Amendment was intended as a last line of defense against a tyrannical government. As far as firearms are concerned and the intent of the amendment, the People should have access to equivalent arms as that possessed by the government.
"Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you."
Here are a couple of relevant quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
"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."
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
In your statement, you imply that you do not put it past the government to murder citizens domestically with drone strikes, and then you try to use that as an excuse to cower and accept disarmament out of fear. If the government murders people en masse in attempts to usurp constitutional protections of our natural rights, it will only be beneficial to our cause in the long term and place this government in a similar historical context with the Stalins, Hitlers, and Maos.
"Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower?"
I'm sure that if someone could afford these items, they could be purchased on the black market - where the criminals shop anyhow. However, I doubt the "Adam Lanzas" of the world would ever be able to afford them. On the other hand, the government uses these weapons in mass murders regularly - even nuclear weapons if you count depleted uranium.
"Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds..."
First of all, they want to ban semi-automatic rifles - not automatic rifles. That expands the gun grab much more widely. However, I am not against people owning fully automatic weapons. Personally, I would prefer the semi-auto for the sake of preserving ammo.
Further, magazines can be cycled through rather quickly. Restricting them to 10 rounds is a useless restriction with regards to the demagogues' alleged motive of "keeping the children safe" from mass shootings. By the way, did you hear about the incident in that happened in China the same day as Sandy Hook where 22 children were stabbed to death?
Maybe a better idea to actually keep the children safe would be to remove the "disarmed victim zone" signs, replace them with signs that say "armed intruders will be shot without question," and allow the teachers and school personnel to voluntarily arm themselves. After all, who in their right mind would put up a sign that said "Gun Free Zone" on any building? Would you put one up at your house? If you owned a convenient store or a bank would you put up such a sign? It's rather silly when you think about it from a logical perspective.
"And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence..."
Actually, stricter gun laws have been demonstrated to increase gun violence. For instance, Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban, and it didn't prevent the Sandy Hook incident. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, and they had a record high number of gun murders this year. Stricter gun laws are counter productive with respect to reducing gun violence. On the other hand, knowledge by potential perpetrators that targets may likely be armed is a good deterrent against violence.
"...I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?"
The questions you pose here are irrelevant. Murder and rape are acts of aggression - initiations of force against another individual - while owning a particular gun is not an initiation of force against anyone.
Libertarians believe in the Non-Aggression Principle that can be summarized as - No person or entity has the right to initiate force against another except in cases of self-defense.
We are not militant. To the contrary, we - if I may - only wish to be left alone as long as we are not infringing on someone else's natural rights. Accordingly, we promote a peaceful foreign policy with use of diplomacy and exchange of ideas and do not wish to occupy the rest of the world through military might. The military should be used for defense not offense. Individuals should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor with no obligation through use of government force to pay others' way. If I cannot rob my neighbor to support myself, I should not be able to use the government to rob my neighbor to do so either. However, libertarians do reserve the right to self-defense - even against a tyrannical government that has us out-armed (but not out-manned).
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: