Thread: U.S. Senate voted 53 to 46 to Defend the Second Amendment

You seem to have a pretty wrapped view of reality. I am not sure why you believe there is some large world wide conspiracy for all governments to implement socialist police states against everyone's will, but there is no evidence of that. Secondly, the idea that the US is special and is the only hope for the world is a pretty sad world view to have. Sounds like shitty nationalist propaganda. Don't get me wrong the US is a fine country but the idea that it is some last final bastion to defend the earth from socialist police states is absurd.

Originally Posted by Alric

You seem to have a pretty wrapped view of reality.

I love my sig line so much that I will probably never replace it, but you just really tempted me.

The United States is the world's only superpower, and we have a lot to do with why there aren't a lot more invasions and revolutions in the world. If totalitarian socialists ever were to take over the U.S. government, a lot of the protection against that type of system would be gone. As a result, major attempts at it would take place in other countries, and some would probably be successful.

With that in mind, think about the fact that there are people out there who would love to turn the United States into a socialist police state. There is a movement to push us there, though it's not completely organized. There are just politicians and others who would like to have that kind of power and also people who really believe it's the best kind of society, so it is absurd to deny that a movement pushing in that direction exists.

That isn't very libertarian of you is it? You think there are people who want to turn every country into a socialist police state and your answer is being a super power, which requires a huge massive government? It is very illogical to think you need a massive government to fight off massive governments. The fact is the US would probably be a freer country if it wasn't a super power, and there are a lot of countries a lot more freer than we are.

You claim people like me and blueline and not really libertarians, but isn't it you with no faith in your ideals? That is why you support the massive army required to be a super power, you think it is the only thing saving us. Unlike you however, I have faith in my ideals. I think the number one weapon against tyranny is knowledge and information. The world isn't a more peaceful and free place because the US is using their armies to force their rules on people, but because of things like the internet increasing global communications and spreading information like never before.

I was stating a fact, not what I believe is the best way to do things. We are the world's only superpower, and our existence is a major deterrent to the spread of totalitarianism. The problem with the picture is that too many countries depend on our military protection and lack incentive to build up their own militaries like they should. I think they should build up their own militaries and that we should stop being so far up the rest of the world's ass. However, I am very pro-military and think ours should be extremely powerful, but much more domestically oriented. That is a common libertarian view, and it is part of the Libertarian Party's platform.

What is NOT libertarian is your love for the United Nations and your acceptance of their international laws and gun control positions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The U.N. does have international laws, and sometimes they do enforce them. They are really selective with it, but they do. They have committed violence in the name of enforcing their laws. Are you all right with that? Should the United Nations exist?

To your first question: No, but I don't harbor a vitriolic hatred for the UN either. I recognize its faults, but it's not something I put a lot of brain power toward. I have more immediate concerns.

To the second: THE UN as it stands probably shouldn't exist, no. A better question would be to ask "Should a United Nations exist?" Are we better off with one than without? I don't know.

So, you are okay with laws, but just not later?

That's not an appropriate description of my argument.

I'm content with laws that maximize liberty under the existing conditions (states exist and will for the foreseeable future). If a stateless society is one that can provide a maximally free society, then those laws will obviously become unnecessary and I will no longer support them.

To use gay marriage as an example again, I said I support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage (i.e. enact a law that increases freedoms or at least makes everybody equal under the law) before I support the argument that the government should not even have a role in marriage (i.e. enact no laws and be barred from doing so in a given area). Why? Because we cannot readily go from "gay marriage is not allowed by law" to "the law says nothing of what kinds of marriage are legal."

I would not see people suffer from inequality under the law just to wait for society to gradually align to my views.

You don't think this treaty could affect U.S. laws in the future? Why not?

Because the constitution supersedes international treaties and a gun registry is illegal, and a movement to legalize them probably would not get enough support.

The Google defintion of "libertarianism":

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: libertarianism

1.
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

I'm a little concerned that you're pulling definitions from the dictionary to discuss a complex political philosophy. It makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

The Libertarian Party is minarchist.

And yet it is significantly populated with anarchists. Why do you think that is? I can guarantee you with great confidence that it's not because they're confused.

I'm breaking the next part of your post up to answer it more completely.

Conspiracy theories are anti-libertarian?

It makes absolutely no sense for somebody to claim that the markets and society should be relatively free of government intervention because central planning doesn't work while also claiming that complex lies can be told and complex atrocities committed without anybody finding out, the implication from this being that central planning does work.

What about theories concerning conspiracies that did in fact happen? Many of them are declassified now. You should learn about them.

Well, we know that things like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred because keeping people quiet is difficult if not impossible. These are conspiracies that occurred and were exposed relatively quickly. There's a funny thing about real conspiracies: we find out about them, and we don't need to resort to letting our brain run wild to do so.

Contrast this with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Apollo moon landings, the JFK assassination, and now Sandy Hook. These ideas sometimes start off understandably. Somebody finds two data points that don't share an obvious relationship. After time, the person cannot find a direct relationship between the two points. The brain frantically tries to connect the dots, and from that come conspiracy theories. People are not often content with accepting that some events really are innocuous.

This is a great primer on the psychology of conspiracy theories. You should watch it.

Sandy Hoax has not been declassified because it just happened, but it was a hoax. Anybody with average or above intelligence who has really researched it knows that. It is not a libertarian belief. It is just a fact.

Yet there are millions of incredibly intelligent people who have taken the time to review what happened and they don't accept that the shooting was orchestrated by somebody other than a deranged kid.

You seem pretty indifferent to governments and their rules. What I boldfaced shows clearly that you are not really an anarchist. Why have you been claiming to be one?

You've misinterpreted me, which I've repeatedly shown. Take some care to go over my posts in full before replying.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

To your first question: No, but I don't harbor a vitriolic hatred for the UN either. I recognize its faults, but it's not something I put a lot of brain power toward. I have more immediate concerns.

To the second: THE UN as it stands probably shouldn't exist, no. A better question would be to ask "Should a United Nations exist?" Are we better off with one than without? I don't know.

Then you are not an anarchist.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

That's not an appropriate description of my argument.

I'm content with laws that maximize liberty under the existing conditions (states exist and will for the foreseeable future). If a stateless society is one that can provide a maximally free society, then those laws will obviously become unnecessary and I will no longer support them.

Then you see the possibility that you could be okay with anarchy, but you are not an anarchist. An anarchist wants anarchy.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Because the constitution supersedes international treaties and a gun registry is illegal, and a movement to legalize them probably would not get enough support.

Why do you trust that the Second Amendment will be respected and obeyed? Have you not seen enough of the opposite of that?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm a little concerned that you're pulling definitions from the dictionary to discuss a complex political philosophy. It makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

I am showing you what words mean because you act like you don't know.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And yet it is significantly populated with anarchists. Why do you think that is? I can guarantee you with great confidence that it's not because they're confused.

I'm breaking the next part of your post up to answer it more completely.

A full adoption by the U.S. government of the Libertarian Party's platform would be a huge move in the direction of anarchy, so anarchists support us. If we ever got to that point, they would abandon us and push to have no government at all.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It makes absolutely no sense for somebody to claim that the markets and society should be relatively free of government intervention because central planning doesn't work while also claiming that complex lies can be told and complex atrocities committed without anybody finding out, the implication from this being that central planning does work.

We don't claim that the government has no power. We claim that it has way too much power. We also claim that the power is ineffective at making things work well in certain areas and to certain extents. We don't claim that central planning has no effect at all. We claim that it often has very harmful effects in certain areas.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well, we know that things like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred because keeping people quiet is difficult if not impossible. These are conspiracies that occurred and were exposed relatively quickly. There's a funny thing about real conspiracies: we find out about them, and we don't need to resort to letting our brain run wild to do so.

Contrast this with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the Apollo moon landings, the JFK assassination, and now Sandy Hook. These ideas sometimes start off understandably. Somebody finds two data points that don't share an obvious relationship. After time, the person cannot find a direct relationship between the two points. The brain frantically tries to connect the dots, and from that come conspiracy theories. People are not often content with accepting that some events really are innocuous.

This is a great primer on the psychology of conspiracy theories. You should watch it.

Have you heard of Project MK Ultra, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, or Project Bluebird? People didn't figure those out right away. The programs just eventually became declassified.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yet there are millions of incredibly intelligent people who have taken the time to review what happened and they don't accept that the shooting was orchestrated by somebody other than a deranged kid.

Oh, really? Can you name some of those people? What they did was hear some news stories and accept them as Gospel.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You've misinterpreted me, which I've repeatedly shown. Take some care to go over my posts in full before replying.

No, I have quoted you to prove that you are not an anarchist, or at least the character you play on this site is not an anarchist.

I am not sure how you can say you are for a small government but want an extremely powerful military. Having a massive military creates the need for massive government. Also it is pretty naive that you think the US goes around the world protecting democracy. The US doesn't step in to help anyone unless it is of some importance to us, and the US has probably overthrown as many democracies as they have helped to defend. Most of the world democracies don't rely on us for anything, they just do their own things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you are not an anarchist.

Not a logical conclusion from my argument. Belief does not require certainty. I personally don't think a UN is necessary, but I'm not certain.

Then you see the possibility that you could be okay with anarchy, but you are not an anarchist. An anarchist wants anarchy.

I want a maximally free society. If anarchy provides that, and I accept that it does, then I want anarchy. This is not hard to understand. Certainty is not necessary.

Why do you trust that the Second Amendment will be respected and obeyed? Have you not seen enough of the opposite of that?

No, I haven't. Very bad laws enacted, yes. "Oh fuck shit is hitting the fan, buy ammo!", no. I trust that it will be respected in the same way that I trust that the rest of the BoR will be respected. I very much doubt anybody is going to lobby to repeal anything in the Bill of Rights and gather enough support to pass that appeal.

I am showing you what words mean because you act like you don't know.

No, you're giving me very general dictionary definitions when we're discussing complex ideas. That would never pass in a serious academic discussion.

A full adoption by the U.S. government of the Libertarian Party's platform would be a huge move in the direction of anarchy, so anarchists support us. If we ever got to that point, they would abandon us and push to have no government at all.

Read through any academic or even semi-academic discussion of libertarian political theory. Anarchists are regularly included under the tent. I won't comment further on this issue; your perspective is too myopic and uninformed.

We don't claim that the government has no power. We claim that it has way too much power. We also claim that the power is ineffective at making things work well in certain areas and to certain extents. We don't claim that central planning has no effect at all. We claim that it often has very harmful effects in certain areas.

This literally has nothing to do with what I said. "Doesn't work" does not equal "has no power."

Have you heard of Project MK Ultra, Project Artichoke, Operation Mockingbird, or Project Bluebird? People didn't figure those out right away. The programs just eventually became declassified.

When we find out about conspiracies isn't the issue. I acknowledge that conspiracies happen. What I don't acknowledge is the plausibility of conspiracy theories. In other words, isn't it odd that we seem to get hold of tidbits of hard evidence that something odd is going on when a real conspiracy is happening? Those bits of evidence tend to lead to the conspiracy being exposed. And, by the way, those bits of evidence have a habit of being accepted by people who tend not to believe in conspiracy theories, Congress exposing MKUltra being an example.

Meanwhile, we are left with nothing of substance when armchair forensic scientists on the internet sift through innocuous details trying to confirm their own biases.

Oh, really? Can you name some of those people? What they did was hear some news stories and accept them as Gospel.

You do the same. You hear a view point opposite the official story and accept it as Gospel. It's no different. Anyway, my point was that intelligence has nothing to do with accepting (or denying) a conspiracy theory. It's a natural phenomenon, but it's also one that should be discouraged.

No, I have quoted you to prove that you are not an anarchist, or at least the character you play on this site is not an anarchist.

You've done no proving, just restricted your definitions so that they deliberately do not fit my arguments.

The character? What?

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not sure how you can say you are for a small government but want an extremely powerful military. Having a massive military creates the need for massive government. Also it is pretty naive that you think the US goes around the world protecting democracy. The US doesn't step in to help anyone unless it is of some importance to us, and the US has probably overthrown as many democracies as they have helped to defend. Most of the world democracies don't rely on us for anything, they just do their own things.

That is not true. Do you really think anybody would dare invade one of our European allies? No, they wouldn't. They know we would blow them off the face of the map.

I do believe in small government, except for the military. We live in an insane world, and we have to be able to fight off the scum. I do believe our allies need to build stronger militaries and we need to focus on home defense and get out of the every day affairs of the rest of the world, but we need a very powerful military. Since you are not really a Libertarian, you didn't know that strong military is part of our platform. Here, educate yourself.

https://www.google.com/#q=libertaria...itary&safe=off

"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States ..."


BLUELINE, make sure you read that platform information. I apologize for using the dictionary to show you what the words we are using actually mean.

You said this in my other currently active gun control thread, where you have only opposed me just like you have only opposed me in this one. Some libertarian you are.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Maybe in order to have a maximally free society, we do need a minimal state.

There we have it.

If a person had a theory on a conspiracy that did happen and it turned out to be right, that conspiracy theorist would have been correct about the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories about real conspiracies are correct. I have presented a whole universe of reasons to conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I have shown actual footage and copies of documents to support my arguments. So, when you say I just heard about it and accepted it as Gospel, you were lying. I didn't believe Sandy Hook was a hoax when I first heard about the hoax idea. Then I researched it, and the truth became obvious very quickly.

You are entirely misrepresenting their ideals. When they say a sufficient military they are not talking about a massive military. Pretty much all libertarians, regardless of if they are in the Libertarian party or not(there is a difference between holding libertarian ideals and being in the party that shares the name) believe we need a smaller military than we have now. Much, much smaller than we have now. There is a lot who says we don't need any military, and a lot who say we could get rid of things like the entire army(since the navy, air force and marines are more than sufficient to defend US soil). Pretty much everyone agrees we need to cut the military back though.

I am not sure how you can say you are for small government with a huge military though. Those things are not compatible. Especially since a huge military with no central government is a police state. I mean what the heck do you think a government made of nothing but the military is? When you have generals running the entire government you are just begging for corruption. Your ideals are not the ideals of a libertarian. In fact your ideas seem to lead us directly to what you claim you want to stop from happening.

Also there is little chance of European countries getting invaded even without the US. They do not need us protecting them, that is a pretty silly statement. Lastly, there is no actual footage or documents that supported anything you ever said about Sandy Hook. In fact I asked you several time for evidence of Sand Hook being a hoax and you never showed anything even resembling evidence, just random stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

A military sufficient to protect the United States is a massive military. However, I don't think we should have bases all over the world.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. He runs as a Republican so he can get enough attention, but he was the Libertarian Party's candidate in 1988. His views have remained consistent since then.

http://www.dailypaul.com/252365/dr-r...candidate-1988



I also believe in having a president at the top of military decisions and the requirement of Congressional approval for war. Those provisions are in the Constitution. I am a Constitutionalist.

Oh, I haven't presented any Sandy Hoax evidence? Right. Who do you think you are fooling?



Do you want to claim that there is no evidence in that one too? Anybody who watches it will know that there is actually lots and lots of evidence in it.

There is no real evidence in that video. There is random nonsense that leads to random speculation but nothing at all that shows it was a hoax. I am not even sure you know what evidence is. Some person giving their opinion on some random video isn't real evidence. Especially when their opinion doesn't make sense and is illogical and wrong.

Also the US doesn't need a 'massive' army to defend itself. Other countries defend them self just fine without anything even remotely the size of our army.

Not just opinion. Lots of facts, documents, interviews, photographs, footage of events and places, etc. All somebody has to do to know that your assessment is dishonest is watch some of the video.

The U.S. is one of the largest countries in the world. We need a large military. Unlike the countries you have in mind, we don't have a more powerful bodyguard to turn to.

The US is large in size of land mass but there is only two countries next to us, Canada and Mexico and they are not going to invade us. So why do we need a massive military? Even if the US had no military at all, it is unlikely we would ever get invaded. There isn't any countries that could support an invasion of the US. The US has the two biggest barriers to invasion on earth and they are called the Pacific and Atlantic ocean.

Also I would be happy if people look at the video. They would see how stupid the claims are in it. There is a reason people laugh at that sort of stuff and it isn't because you have evidence.

Our powerful military is the reason we have not been invaded since 1812. We have to make countries like Russia and China not even consider sending their militaries here. If we had a wuss military, North America would have already been taken over, and there would be no USA, Mexico, or Canada.

Originally Posted by Alric

Also I would be happy if people look at the video.

Good. That makes two of us. We both encourage people to watch the video! Folks, you really should watch the video, at least a few seconds of it. You will want to keep watching. I promise. I also recommend these:

Sandy Hoax Ultimate: Case Closed

Sandy Hook Massacre: A Closer Look

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

Sandy Hook: The Documentary 2013

Sandy Hoaxed 2nd Edition: The Sandy Hook Gun Control False Flag

The Sandy Hook Actors (all three parts)

The Sandy Hook Bizarro Show (all six parts)

Neither China nor Russia could ever invade the US, even if we had no military at all. Maybe you could make an argument for them taking Alaska or Hawaii and so we might need a small force to defend them, but they couldn't invade mainland USA. The reason the US isn't invaded isn't the size of our army but because there is a huge ocean in between us and everyone else.

To invade the US you would need to basically invade Canada or Mexico first, otherwise it would be nearly impossible. Anyone who thinks we need a massive military to keep from being invaded doesn't know shit about military stuff. We would probably be fine with no military but even just a decent size navy(far smaller than the one we have today) would be more than sufficient. There is no way we need even 1/5th of what we have today.

Originally Posted by Alric

Neither China nor Russia could ever invade the US, even if we had no military at all. Maybe you could make an argument for them taking Alaska or Hawaii and so we might need a small force to defend them, but they couldn't invade mainland USA. The reason the US isn't invaded isn't the size of our army but because there is a huge ocean in between us and everyone else.

To invade the US you would need to basically invade Canada or Mexico first, otherwise it would be nearly impossible. Anyone who thinks we need a massive military to keep from being invaded doesn't know shit about military stuff. We would probably be fine with no military but even just a decent size navy(far smaller than the one we have today) would be more than sufficient. There is no way we need even 1/5th of what we have today.

Have you ever heard of the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, or the War of 1812?

SparkNotes: The French and Indian War (1754-1763): General Summary

SparkNotes: The War of 1812 (1809-1815): Renewed British Vigor: The Invasion of New York (1814)

Quick Revolutionary War Tour 1765-1777



Countries still have boats, and now they have airplanes. Do you think there is now an invisible forcefield protecting our land from invasion?

The military thinks we need a massive military. Do you want to tell me that they don't know shit about military stuff? We would be fine with no military? Are you joking? Have you studied the history of invasions?

List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The French and Indian War was wars fought by the colonies, and if compared today it would be like Canada and the US fighting with both sides having support from foreign allies. Which is what I said, that only Canada or Mexico could invade. What you gave is an example of that. In the revolutionary war we were British colonies and many were still loyal to Britain at the time. In the war of 1812, they also had colonies in North America.

Notice a trend? In all those wars they had bases of operation in and around America, which gave them a foothold on the continent and bases from which they could supply their troops. Without those things an invasion of the US would be nearly impossible. Troops need supplies, and they need to eat and you can't really supply ships in the middle of the ocean. Which is why there is no way anyone will ever invade the US. If they wanted to they would have to go through Canada or Mexico first.

The French and Indian War was Europe's Seven Years War fought in North America. It was a European War that came here. The Revolutionary War was a result of a British invasion, and so was the War of 1812.

So, what exactly is it you think is so different about the U.S.? Did you see the list of history's invasions I posted? Did you look at the changing map of Europe video? The same could be done with Africa, Asia, and South America. Invasion is all over human history. What is special about the United States? I say it's our military. What do you say?

Has the U.S. ever invaded a country on the other side of an ocean? Has any country? Seriously, has any country? Yes. Therefore, it can be done.

http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africana...of-africa.html

United States declaration of war upon Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...0%93present%29

http://www.95th-rifles.co.uk/researc...south-america/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish...e_Aztec_Empire

Those are just a few examples. The full list is really long.

Don't forget that Cuba and other island nations are right by us.




Meanwhile, we need to stay out of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. It is such a bad idea.

Are you ignoring my points on purpose or are you just that dense? I already explained how you can't invade a large country over that large of an ocean because you couldn't supply the army without having some type of foothold or supply base. All your examples pretty much prove my point.

Attacking a neighboring country 50 miles across a boarder is easy and is nothing like sailing 3500 miles across the ocean to attack someone(which is the distance to France). Like you said the the French and Indian War was fighting between the neighboring colonies. We were British colonies and they had supporters here in the US so they had places they could get supplies here in the US during the revolutionary war.

In WW2 we didn't just go attack Japan we had to island hop from one island to the next to build up a supply network and even then the US had to nuke Japan because it was so impractical to invade the country. We also didn't just travel from the US right into Iraq, we have military bases all over the area. In fact we have military bases all around the world in order to try to support troop movements. Same with Spain who had colonies in the area when they fought the Aztec, plus again they had a bunch of locals who supported them because they thought the Spanish were like gods.

All those examples support what I said. You need a good supply line to fight and battle and have a large ocean in the way makes that nearly impossible. Also the population in the US is way larger than the population was in any of those places back then. A larger population means you need even more troops, and the more troops you have the more strain that is placed on your supply line.

Simply put there is no way any country today could sustain any sort of major invasion on the US, even if we had no military at all. Honestly, the US coast guard could probably more than sufficient to defend all the US. In fact if you got rid of the army, navy and air force and only had the coast guard and national guard, we would still have a larger military than most countries. There is no risk to us at all.

I gave you several examples of when it has happened, and I mentioned that there are nations other than Mexico and Canada right by us. Militaries have in fact traveled over oceans to invade countries without having ally bases to go to first, and there are countries near us that could potentially be used as ally bases. Understand?

Also, they could invade Mexico or Canada first any way. That alone is reason for us to have a powerful military, but the options would not be limited to invasion through one or both of those countries. Plus, there are large boats that airplanes can fly back and forth to. Those work as bases.

This is the dumbest debate I have ever had on this site. What are you up to?


Remember that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is completely insane.

Yeah I agree, this is probably the dumbest debate I ever had on this site. I think everyone can see that you really have no clue what you are talking about. Your position is basically fear mongering. A common tactic for someone pushing propaganda. You think we should be scared of the world, scared of the UN, scared of everyone. We need a massive army or everyone is going to invade us, we shouldn't use diplomacy because all countries really are trying to control us secretly. Your entire position is, that we should be scared and should act out of fear. You are just pushing bullshit propaganda.

All your arguments are entirely transparent and laughable when looked at from a logical point of view and not a fear based point of view.

Yeah, I'm crazy for thinking we should have a strong military because the whole world is like Mayberry. I am also crazy for not trusting the Obama Administration or the U.N. because they have proven themselves to be so trustworthy. You have such a good point. However, have you ever considered studying world history?

You didn't say a strong military, you said a massive military. A strong military would be like 1/10th our current military size. What we have today is a massive military and it is a waste of money that causes more problems than it solves. Also you don't need to trust the UN or Obama, the treaty doesn't say anything you think it does. You are just paranoid and scared and think everyone is out to get you so you are reading things that are not in the treaty and just in your head.

Also, I know a lot about world history. In fact, I probably know more than you. You seem to have a very US centrist view on everything, so it makes me think you don't really have a good understanding of the world as a whole.