• Completely agree

    Libertarianism is definitely political and can only sometimes cross into the other parts of life. Love it when somebody can sum up an answer in a few words!

  • How do you mean by pro-cannon, sir?

    Is there a line that you draw to restrict private citizens from owning some weapons like nukes, tanks, machine guns? Does the line that you draw have some basis, or is it an arbitrary line that you draw based on your judgment that you believe this X gun is bad and this Y gun is not that bad?

    I actually would love to hear your response. I have a difficult time drawing a line too. I feel like my line is arbitrary. Like, I don't want citizens to be able to own tanks, but I want them to be able to own handguns. But honestly, I don't have any argument or any basis from which to create this line. I suppose it's just my own man-made judgment.

    However, I did come across a RP clip talking about gun control that seems to answer this question. If you're interested, you only have to watch the first 20 seconds.


    Do you agree with Ron Paul? And how do you argue your pro-cannon stance?

  • I know exactly what you mean

    Honestly, I'm very open minded. I will debate gun control with my friends and they'll make very good points. I hope that they see that I make very good points too. It's very hard debating somebody who's close-minded, so I try and always be open-minded.

    In regards to your question, I feel like whenever you mention something about background checks here on the DailyPaul or some type of gun control (I don't mean to sound scathing), people will always be defensive and defend guns in GENERAL. However, not all gun control advocates are for taking away all guns. So I think it's really important that we stop using straw man arguments and misrepresenting the opposition. Most gun control advocates do not want to ban all guns, as you have pointed out. Some really do have moderate views.

    My friend came to be about the universal background check law. He presented some very convincing arguments and I had to think about the gun show, internet, private sales loophole. I was very tempted to be onboard with closing down this background check loophole. But I started to remember why I'm a natural rights advocate instead of a utilitarian advocate. I think that people who use utilitarian philosophy don't have a backbone. They don't have principles. Like... if you ask a utilitarian... Do you believe in drug laws? Do you believe in the TSA? Do you believe in allowing terminally ill patients to have the right to choose experimental medicine for themselves that are not approved by the FDA? Do you believe in the NDAA? They'll assess each argument and see which side offers the greatest amount of happiness. However, Libertarians usually advocate the natural rights philosophy. If you ask us our views on these questions, we won't even bat an eyelash. We don't have to have a few minutes to think about our views. You already know that we're against drug laws, against the TSA, pro-terminally ill patient choices, and against the NDAA. This is because we actually have principles.

    So, for the universal background check argument. I think Libertarians will generally say that this requirement violates private property rights. The government should not be allowed to dictate what you do with your property. Sure, it has the right to require Federal Firearms Licensed dealers to have their license to sell guns, and to run background checks, but this mandate is okay with me because it's a condition to be a licensed dealer. Just like you have to have a doctor's license to be a doctor. I'm cool with that mandate. But it shouldn't be able to mandate that private citizens undergo background checks to have a private voluntary exchange. I should be able to hand my pistol down to my son without any hassle. I should be able to sell my handgun to my friend without any hassle (unless he does something stupid with it and has a dangerous past, in that case I'm actually kind-of pro-negligence lawsuits but that's something totally different than this subject). Natural rights theory tells us that we have a right to our property and to do whatever we want with it.

    In today's world, I am allowed to buy a car from my neighbor without any hassle. I'm not too sure about state laws, but I'm under the impression that if I just want to buy a Mercedes to keep in my garage to rust, I can literally pay my neighbor $5000 for his Mercedes without even applying to the DMV for a change of title. Likewise, I believe that I should be able to buy my friend's gun and keep it in my home, my own private domicile in my safe, without any hassle. NOW, if I wanted to take that gun out in PUBLIC, that's a totes different story! Just like if I want to actually ride my newly bought Mercedes out on state roads, I must apply for a driver's license / title change on the car. So, if I plan to take my gun out in public or to apply for a CCW license, I totally support having to pass a background check and passing tests. But literally, these laws are in place. People who carry firearms in public are already doing exactly what this gun control advocate is asking. They already do have to pass a background check, a skill exam, and a safety exam.

    Anyways, besides the argument that private property protection allows for this private sales loophole, I really think that the universal background check is a slippery slope. Because LITERALLY, with this new universal background check, the government must know every time a gun changes hands. So why does the government need to know this? With this new law, it would always know who owns what guns. Because if you sell your handgun to somebody else, you have to notify the government that you did. I think there's enough historical precedence to show that

    Step 1: Universal background checks
    Step 2: Registration, always knowing where every gun is at in any moment within that country
    Step 3: Confiscation, if crap ever hits the fan and martial law is ever imposed

    Now, if there was some magical way to ensure that background checks were deleted within 24 hours, I think maybe I would give the universal background check more thought. I don't see why gun control advocates would have a problem with this. They would get their universal background check ensuring everybody who ever purchased a gun would be safe to own one. And the federal government could never keep a registry on its citizens. This would seem to be a great thing. But honestly, I don't believe it'll ever happen. The surveillance state is growing, and they will never delete any of their data on anything.

  • Awesome skim read

    I'm going to save it for later to completely read it, but I always enjoy an article that uses historical precedence instead of pure theory-craft to explain an argument :)

  • Thanks!

    Was informative for learning a fact about the wars. Does anybody think that that number is an overestimate or underestimate of the amount of money spent since 2001 until today? Like, do you think that's a conservative estimate or anything? I really don't know how the money is calculated.

  • I think

    he said "it sure is our business" because he meant that we are giving them billions of dollars in aid and giving them cover for the UN. He wasn't saying Israel should sacrifice their sovereignty because we pay them. He meant that if Rand really means what he says, he should be advocating stopping funding for Israel, stopping weapons sales, and stopping the human rights cover-ups. Only after that, will Israel be "none of our business."

  • I've always been confused about 9/11 and Sandy Hook

    I know that Building 7 was not taken down by a plane, and controlled demolition probably had something to do with it. But for the other 4 planes, I've never understood how people explain away the passengers on those planes. Like, what do they say actually happened to those passengers?

    And for Sandy Hook, how do people explain the 20+ person body count?

    For both events, weren't there grieving families for all of the plane passengers, and for the Sandy Hook children? For example, if United 93 didn't crash and it was another plane instead, wouldn't we hear every relative of every United 93 passenger say, "NO wait my cousin didn't die and he was on United 93!" The whole story would collapse in a matter of minutes.

    Granted, I have a deep distrust of the government's reports about what happened. But can someone explain how you account for the victims if there is another explanation?

  • I totally agree

    with your sentiment that marriage should not be by the state or federal government, or any government institution. It should definitely be handled religiously. But I really think that in this day and age, arguing over this is just being very nitpicky. Because in the end, let's say that the state governments and federal governments all of a sudden come to their senses and say "hands off the marriage question!" and allow marriage to be settled religiously.

    However, the state governments are still very likely to discriminate "gay marriages" and "straight marriages." This is the very heart of the problem! Then, "gay married couples" will say "Who cares if I can call my marriage a 'marriage?' That's not the solution I was looking for. I still want to be able to visit my spouse in the ICU, have tax benefits, have a say in autopsies, have a say in my spouse's medical procedures, renew leases for my spouse if he's not here, receive family rates for all types of insurance, etc."

    In my opinion, even though I believe that marriage should be handled religiously, I don't believe that this is the political solution. I think the political solution would be to still allow state governments to decide whatever they want on gay marriage, and use the existing marriage benefits to apply to gay marriages if gay marriages are allowed in that state. It is very unlikely that the state of Virginia, for example, will discriminate against "gay marriages" and rescind the "marriage rights," if the people of Virginia have already voted yes for gay marriage.

    Here's a great link for marriage benefits if anybody wanted to check it out. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benef...

  • Really like

    where you're going with this post. Makes a whole lot of sense! I think there will always be some type of governing agency that will collect taxes/tolls, and there will be a law enforcement in both societies that will punish those who don't pay taxes/tolls, whether it's in a minarchist society or in an AnCap society.

  • Can you explain why it would be deflation

    Instead of hyperinflation? For a curious student :)

  • What do you mean by hoarding?

    Still learning a lot of stuff about economics, but do you mean to say that these banks are just hoarding dollars in their reserves and not lending it out? I thought that instead of loaning this easy liquid money out to regular people, these banks were instead putting them into stocks and bonds and stuff. But that's technically not hoarding, it's just seeking higher returns in the stock market since it's not as risky as lending to regular people right now. If you prop up the stock market like this and artificially raise asset prices, does this not create inflation? Or are banks just hoarding this money and not using it on stocks/bonds? Just a little confused when people say hoarding!

  • I think you should

    give Rand some credit on wanting to cutting those three departments, since it's a politically smart thing to do. I don't think we can cut 5 departments all at once, I think the people need to indoctrinated about "smaller government" slowly because the injection is way too big to handle in one dose.

    I really loved what you said about Social Security. I think that reducing payouts by increasing the age in which you begin to receive Social Security is major theft, and I like how you said it was retroactively taxing people. Good stuff! Not sure how this 17% flat tax will work out and if it will in fact be a HIGHER tax than what we have now. Not too good with that kind of accounting, I suppose we'll see!

  • Yup they are delaying

    The vote on the nomination for John Brennan for CIA Director. Rand Paul started a filibuster early this morning at 11:45 AM ET. It's not that he wants to delay the vote on the nomination indefinitely. The vote will happen when Rand Paul refuses to sit down or give up or something like that.

    Basically, the other day Rand Paul asked John Brennan, "Is America allowed to kill U.S. citizens on American soil?" John Brennan said "Well, the CIA is not allowed to do that on American soil, but you'll have to ask the Department of Justice for anything outside the CIA."

    And when Obama was asked, Obama was trying to dodge the question about killing U.S. citizens on American soil. And Attorney General Holder was beating around the bush on the issue too, saying some "extraordinary" circumstances could force the military to kill an American citizen.

    So Rand Paul is using his time to explain due process and tell everybody that yeah it's cool if we kill somebody on American soil if they have a grenade launcher aimed at the White House. But Obama and Holder have not said "we will never use a drone strike to kill a non-combatant." Basically, Rand Paul wants them to say, in a statement, "If somebody is suspected of doing something, and they are in a non-combatant state (not holding a grenade launcher or a gun or whatever), they must be given due process and taken to the courts." Rand is using his filibuster time in order to bring it to America's attention that the Constitution and due process must be followed, and that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama need to make a statement supporting the Constitution. Otherwise, it needs to be brought to America's attention that the current Administration may in fact have the right to use lethal force on non-combatant Americans.

    Yeah his whole filibuster time has basically been 12+ straight hours of the history of due process and how the Constitution was made. Really fun stuff, turned me from a Rand hater to a Rand lover

  • Does this mean thaT more

    Does this mean thaT more regulation would be better for the economy and might have prevented the 2008 crisis?

  • Isn't due process something that can be lost?

    From what the reports were saying, Chris Dorner was shooting police officers near the cabin and was a hostile suspect. In general, if there is no way to capture a hostile suspect without losing men, doesn't it become a duty to turn on the green light so that you can shoot to kill?

    From my knowledge of law enforcement, the cops weren't doing anything wrong because they knew that whoever was in that cabin was a hostile suspect and would not surrender peacefully.

    I'm not saying that the LAPD was truthful in every step of their investigation, or that everything the MSM is reporting is entirely correct. They probably fabricated a bit of stuff, but in general, isn't due process something that can easily be lost when resisting arrest violently?

  • Right

    I was talking to my friend the other day and we both agreed that nobody really has a problem with drones per se, we just have a problem with when they use it. Like when they use drones to attack innocent civilians in Northwestern Pakistan. Now THAT I am against! But drones are not illegal per se, they're just another instrument that we have in our military arsenal like a tank or a fighter jet that can shoot missiles.

    However, in regards to domestic drones, I just don't see how it can be legal in the U.S. In regards to the debate on WHEN to use drones, I don't see any proper function even for unarmed drones domestically except if they are used for special purposes like tracking down Chris Dorner for a weird example, especially if drones are better at tracking down targets than helicopters. Not sure if anyone would agree, but that's the cool thing about DailyPaulers we agree on 95%, it's just the other 5%, like which emergencies would reasonably legalize drone searches that we differ in opinion.

  • I Still Don't See What's Wrong with Ron Paul's Comment

    At first I was aghast that Ron Paul was so insensitive, but by the third time I read the quote I really understood it.

    "Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense."

    When he says those who live by the sword, he's not literally talking about all military veterans who literally have swords and guns. He's talking about people who live by the philosophy of living by the sword. Meaning... those people who would take their friends out to a shooting range to treat PTSD instead of seeking personal help or a psychiatrist. Or those parents who beat their children into submission rather than using discipline. Or those people, if insulted with a racist name, who would straight up punch the other guy instead of ignoring racist comments or talking it out. Or, in an example we're used to, those nations that would wage pre-emptive wars on other countries to "stop them from attacking us."

    When you live by the sword, or when you live by a lifestyle that stresses violence, then that is most likely the fate that waits for you. Dr. Paul did not literally mean those people who have weapons at home for defense will die by those weapons. Complete nonsense.

  • Well, in California, Leland

    Well, in California, Leland Yee tried to pass a bill that would prohibit gun manufacturers to sell "bullet buttons" and "mag magnets" that would allow citizens to reload their guns in a matter of seconds.


    I believe that citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, no doubt. I've been debating with friends over whether micromanagement should occur. I do believe that states do have the right to micromanage what guns should be allowed, etc.

    For example, everyone on the DailyPaul was very happy that Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization. I was extremely happy too. But it's not like you can willy nilly carry 50 pounds of it on you or in your car. Recreational users are allowed only one ounce of marijuana. This is what I mean by MICROMANAGEMENT!

    Nobody on this forum except a few people are really answering the OP's question correctly. He's wondering if there should be micromanagement, once you assume that everybody can hold a firearm. Are there ways that we can make a gun-wielding nation safer? In my opinion, I believe that yes we can, through laws like Leland Yee's. I really do respect other people's opinions though, they're really great debates.

    Micromanagement is a very good issue to debate about. People who are saying "Every citizen should have the right to bear arms as a last resort to tyranny..." We ALREADY KNOW THAT!! Goodness gracious, you're still stuck on 10 pages ago. We finished that argument, said and done. We all agree that citizens should be able to have guns. Now we're wondering about should there be stricter micromanagement/public school checkpoints after so many school shootings?

    These are issues that are worth debating, and I truly respect both sides. But the OP wants us to answer these types of questions!!!

  • I agree

    I've always been under the impression that prohibition DOES in fact restrict access to a particular product. But people always cite the 1920's alcohol prohibition and say that "You know what, prohibition actually causes EASIER ACCESS to alcohol and MORE of drugs!"

    Unless I'm not understanding something correctly, are people just saying those exaggerated arguments so that they can convert ignorant people onto their side? Because it sounds really good, but really in my opinion it just sounds untrue.

    I mean, shouldn't the fear of being arrested and the fact that you have to pay so much for the prohibited product (since it is illegal) really good disincentives to buy that product? I mean, I'm pretty sure that the underground market for alcohol was no doubt big, but much smaller in the 1920's than the public market for example in 1934 when it was banned.

    Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that what people mean is not that "prohibition actually causes easier access to said product," but that they're really arguing against the underground violence that comes with the prohibited product.

  • To re-use the example of nuclear warheads

    I think gun control really does have a similar argument for nuclear warhead control. In the quote you stated, "People should be able to own machine guns, because if the government wages war against the people, it will be with machine guns," I can liken that to the analogy "All nation states should be able to own nuclear warheads, because if the U.S. wages war against other nations, it will be with nuclear warheads."

    However, don't you believe that there COULD be a world where every nation agrees to ban their stockpile of nuclear weapons? I mean, I'm not sure if I'm being too optimistic, but I truly believe such a world could exist. Or do you believe that since the knowledge and technology of nuclear weapons is already out there, that there will always be that ONE tricky little nation that has a secretive nuke, therefore there is no such thing as nuclear warhead control and that every country should retain their nukes?

    It seems like a Mexican standoff when nobody trusts the other two people to put down their guns. How do you feel about this issue?

    In my opinion, I believe that gun control really does have a place in the U.S. I'm not talking about limiting citizenry gun control, but more like micromanagement, such as banning guns that reload too fast in the private sector. This way, we can have a "controlled, and armed" militia, just like we have the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in which countries maintain a "controlled, and armed" nuclear arsenal.