Will New Federal Gun Control Lead To States Seceding?

[doodle]

If anyone thinks the republicans actually WANT to support private gun ownership, you're delusional. They support it in spirit to secure votes. Just like republicans pretend to support Latinos, to secure their vote.

The republicans would love nothing more than to disarm the country because then they could also do whatever they pleased.

This CT shooting is the perfect excuse for republicans to pass "sensible" gun control, whatever that means, with the ultimate goal of a disarmed populace and a large totalitarian government.

Do you listen to a lot of Alex Jones? This sounds like the kind of paranoid conspiracy talk he puts out over the airwaves.

[Pointedstick]

I agree. TripleB's recent posts come off as very paranoid. It's easy to see things as bleak when you only focus on the negatives. The truth is, the USA is one of the freest, lowest-tax industrialized countries in the world, with incredible diversity, natural resources, and available real estate. Our government sucks, but eh, that's true everywhere. There's really no avoiding an irritating nanny state unless you're willing to live in a pretty rough and underdeveloped country.

[doodle]

I agree. TripleB's recent posts come off as very paranoid. It's easy to see things as bleak when you only focus on the negatives. The truth is, the USA is one of the freest, lowest-tax industrialized countries in the world, with incredible diversity, natural resources, and available real estate. Our government sucks, but eh, that's true everywhere. There's really no avoiding an irritating nanny state unless you're willing to live in a pretty rough and underdeveloped country.

PS,

Can't we just come to the conclusion that at humanity's present level of conciousness government is a necessary evil (as is any organization through which force must be applied)? Ultimately when people live together in a settled society some organizational structure arises. Since mans earliest days as hunter gatherers and even in the animal kingdom there are "leadership" structures that emerge. How can you run an organization and make and enforce decisions if everyone decides for themselves? If my condo functioned without a central decision making board it would be chaos as the owners are always disagreeing about everything....

i don't think the argument that humans are not evolved or intelligent enough to govern themselves, so we need government telling us what to do. is not going to fly....
when government is made up of a smaller group of the same humans!

[doodle]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

War is an entirely different animal today. You can watch youtube videos of people trying to fight against the US using mere guns. It's not very effective. As long as a president has command over the military it really doesn't matter how many guns the citizens have. To think otherwise is just prepper fantasy used to justify an expensive and fun hobby.

Er, Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

I'm somewhat skeptical of this idea too, but let's not downplay the success of motivated guerrilla forces, even when half-starved and poorly-armed.

  its not just the guns and the difficulty they create to suppress a armed citizenry (which is difficult enough) its also a strong political and humanitarian deterrent, that fight would take place in our streets, it would be our innocent women and children that would be the bystanders getting killed, and you need an entire army that is willing to give up their belief in freedom and attack those who haven't.. 

and unarmed population is far easier to suppress.  entire ghettos can be quietly emptied out and the people vanished and nobody sees it or can do anything to stop it if they do

Even if the Jews had been armed in Germany would it really have made any difference? Would they have been able to withstand such a massive cultural extermination program directed at them by the majority? Sure it might have been bloodier, but ultimately the Nazi's would have had their way.

[Pointedstick]

Even if the Jews had been armed in Germany would it really have made any difference? Would they have been able to withstand such a massive cultural extermination program directed at them by the majority? Sure it might have been bloodier, but ultimately the Nazi's would have had their way.

maybe a lot, maybe only a little, but the fight would have been "seen" by Germans who's humanity might have been triggered, and seen by the rest of the world who might have helped them escape or fight,
are you saying it was better that they just went to the gas chamber quietly because strict gun laws are more important to you than peoples lives, and claiming you want to save peoples lives with stricter gun law at the same time????

My Jewish great grandparents and many of their children who stayed in Europe were disarmed and murdered by Nazis. Would firearms have helped? I have no idea, but I'd like them to have had that option. Firearms are no panacea in such a dreadful situation, but they do give you the option of fighting back, which you can add to your list that includes flight (possibly effective) and capitulation (not effective). Would it be appropriate one say that draconian exit restrictions are no big deal as well because flight might not have worked?

People need options, especially in bad situations. That's what firearms are all about. Expanding your options.

[TripleB]

Do you listen to a lot of Alex Jones? This sounds like the kind of paranoid conspiracy talk he puts out over the airwaves.

Several posters have commented recently that I must be listening to "someone" like this. The truth is, I don't listen to anything other than older Harry Browne archives. I don't watch mainstream news or conspiracy theorists.

Every idea I have about current events is an original one that comes from my analytical thought process. I do recite a lot of what HB said, because I have independently decided he's correct about most things. However, since HB died a while back, I'm merely applying his concepts to present day events.

I don't even know who Alex Jones is nor do I care to know. I much prefer independently analyzing situations and coming to my own conclusion. HB was big on principles. He might have discussed issues that were current at the time, but he always brought it back to key Libertarian principles, which is why I listen. To learn and understand those key ideas and then apply them to our current events.

Imagine you're a Republican politician. Do you really want a heavily armed populace? You're doing things like trying to ban abortion, ban immigration, start wars overseas, provide favors to large corporations, disband unions, etc. Do you want people to have access to a violent way to fight against you? Of course not.

They only appear to be pro-gun because it secures them votes. Or maybe they are for private gun ownership but not "military style weapons" because they are less afraid of a bunch of citizens with bolt action hunting rifles.

And if the republicans help the democrats pass a new assault weapon bill, it practically guarantees a Republican Presidential victory in 2016 who promises to repeal it.

It's just one big game where the Republicans and Democrats are secretly friends, playing golf with each other, laughing about how badly they are screwing over citizens... much like your Defense Attorney, Prosecutor, and Judge all play golf together and hang out at the country club after hours. They put on a big show in the courtroom, and at the end of the day are all friends.

There's hyberbole in what I'm saying but the overall message is true.

[doodle]

Can't we just come to the conclusion that at humanity's present level of conciousness government is a necessary evil (as is any organization through which force must be applied)? Ultimately when people live together in a settled society some organizational structure arises. Since mans earliest days as hunter gatherers and even in the animal kingdom there are "leadership" structures that emerge. How can you run an organization and make and enforce decisions if everyone decides for themselves? If my condo functioned without a central decision making board it would be chaos as the owners are always disagreeing about everything....

i don't think the argument that humans are not evolved or intelligent enough to govern themselves, so we need government telling us what to do. is not going to fly....
when  government is made up of a smaller group of the same humans!

I don't think is really the issue. I think that when a group of people live together (whether that is a family, condo, city, state, federal govt) decisions must be made that will affect the group as a whole. Someone must make the decisions and someone must enforce the decisions. Leadership and power structures always emerge among groups of people. Of course the Non-Agression Principle should apply as much as possible, but there are issues that arise that require enforcement. Think of our Earth as a giant spaceship enterprise....there is a reasons why a captain exists.

[TripleB]

Even if the Jews had been armed in Germany would it really have made any difference? Would they have been able to withstand such a massive cultural extermination program directed at them by the majority? Sure it might have been bloodier, but ultimately the Nazi's would have had their way.

How would you have felt if you were a Jew and 10 Million other Jews were disarmed, rounded into concentration camps and systemically murdered.

Would you:

a) Think that it was inevitable anyway and not worry about trying to fight back and happily saunter into the gas chamber awaiting your death

b) Wish you had access to firearms and at least died trying to fight the oppressive genocidal Nazi regime

I feel so strongly about option B that I can't imagine any sane person considering option A. However, I understand I am not the center of the universe and there may be someone (perhaps you, Doodle) who believes so strongly in Option A and thinks anyone who believes in Option B must be delusional.

Much like Religious people believe so strongly in their religion and myself as an Atheist feel they must be delusional. I understand they feel the exact reverse about my beliefs. 

[doodle]

Do you listen to a lot of Alex Jones? This sounds like the kind of paranoid conspiracy talk he puts out over the airwaves.

Several posters have commented recently that I must be listening to "someone" like this. The truth is, I don't listen to anything other than older Harry Browne archives. I don't watch mainstream news or conspiracy theorists.

Every idea I have about current events is an original one that comes from my analytical thought process. I do recite a lot of what HB said, because I have independently decided he's correct about most things. However, since HB died a while back, I'm merely applying his concepts to present day events.

I don't even know who Alex Jones is nor do I care to know. I much prefer independently analyzing situations and coming to my own conclusion. HB was big on principles. He might have discussed issues that were current at the time, but he always brought it back to key Libertarian principles, which is why I listen. To learn and understand those key ideas and then apply them to our current events.

Imagine you're a Republican politician. Do you really want a heavily armed populace? You're doing things like trying to ban abortion, ban immigration, start wars overseas, provide favors to large corporations, disband unions, etc. Do you want people to have access to a violent way to fight against you? Of course not.

They only appear to be pro-gun because it secures them votes. Or maybe they are for private gun ownership but not "military style weapons" because they are less afraid of a bunch of citizens with bolt action hunting rifles.

And if the republicans help the democrats pass a new assault weapon bill, it practically guarantees a Republican Presidential victory in 2016 who promises to repeal it.

It's just one big game where the Republicans and Democrats are secretly friends, playing golf with each other, laughing about how badly they are screwing over citizens... much like your Defense Attorney, Prosecutor, and Judge all play golf together and hang out at the country club after hours. They put on a big show in the courtroom, and at the end of the day are all friends.

There's hyberbole in what I'm saying but the overall message is true.

Have you thought about throwing some Noam Chomsky into your libertarian reading? He is a renowned libertarian but comes at things from a slightly different angle than Harry Browne on certain issues.

[Pointedstick]

I don't think is really the issue. I think that when a group of people live together (whether that is a family, condo, city, state, federal govt) decisions must be made that will affect the group as a whole. Someone must make the decisions and someone must enforce the decisions. Leadership and power structures always emerge among groups of people. Of course the Non-Agression Principle should apply as much as possible, but there are issues that arise that require enforcement. Think of our Earth as a giant spaceship enterprise....there is a reasons why a captain exists.

You're quite right. But outside of government, we usually have the ability to choose which power structures we're subject to. Many left-leaning people object to the top-down hierarchical power structures of corporations, and they're right that corporations are basically mini-dictatorships. But the good news is you can choose whether or not to be subject to their rule! As you said in another thread, if you don't like it, you can leave! Same with your oft-repeated condo example. You can sell your condo and move into another condo development with better leadership, or move into a single-family house, or buy rural land and build your own house… you have options!

The problem with government is that its monopolized territory and spheres of influence are so vast that it reduces options in proportion to its size and power. I can get away from my town's laws by moving to another town, but I can't escape the federal government's laws without moving to an entirely different country, with presents significant barriers such as different languages and currencies, laws banning certain financial or physical products, etc. The barriers are much much higher.

In principle, I would have far fewer complaints living under the government of your hypothetical  100-person village than I do about living under a monolithic government that rules 310 million people. The smaller and more local the government, the more say individuals have in its decision-making process. Imagine if your condo board had 5,000 people on it and governed all the housing developments in the entire state of Florida. Would you expect it to make decisions that were are sane as it presumably does now?

[TripleB]

I don't think is really the issue. I think that when a group of people live together (whether that is a family, condo, city, state, federal govt) decisions must be made that will affect the group as a whole. Someone must make the decisions and someone must enforce the decisions. Leadership and power structures always emerge among groups of people.

You raise an interesting and valid point. If one were living in a Condo, then many members of the Condo wouldn't want their neighbors leaving a 1985 Buick up on cinder blocks in their driveway, which is an eyesore and detracts from the property value. Thus the Condo association is formed and before a person buys a condo in that community, they can freely look at the rules and decide if they wish to abide by them.

Unfortunately this premise fails when it comes to federal governments. I can opt-out of the No-Rusty-Buick rule by simply choosing not to buy a condo in that community. With a free market, there's another condo community that welcomes old rusty cars and I'll go live there. Or buy my own house where I'm free to do it.

With federal governments, I can't opt out of anything short of renouncing my citizenship. If I don't like the federal marijuana ban, I can't opt out of that.

This is why State's Rights were so important to the founding fathers and why such limitations were placed on federal government. If New York wants to ban Marijuana, I should be able to move to California, which does allow it, and smoke it there. However, the federal government is stripping states of the ability to make those decisions for themselves.

I cannot simply opt out of the 50,000+ Federal Laws on the books by moving to a different state.

If I want to opt out of the country entirely, the US Government is now claiming that I must continue to pay income taxes for the next 20 years. How fair and just is that?

Additionally, it may be true the US Government is the best/freest country in the world, so where would I go? My problem isn't specifically with the US government, it's with all governments.

I want to live in a world where the federal government does virtually nothing and has virtually no powers. Secure the border, deliver mail, print money. Done. Then I'd be free to select a State that has slightly more powers and rules. I can avoid god-awful states like NY, NJ and select a free state like TX or Montana. The problem is the federal government won't let Montana do what it wants. Montana would legalize "machine guns" but the federal government won't allow it. Colorado would legal pot smoking but the federal government won't allow it.

While it may be necessary for people to live by rules, the federal government is the wrong entity to do it with.

The rules should be decided on the lowest level possible to make them as easy to opt out as possible. I'm completely OK with a condo association banning marijuana use on their property. If a group of condo owners decide they don't want to smell it, or be subject to "stoned" people, let them ban it. It's not oppressive because not all Condos will ban it, and a pot smoker could move to another community, which perhaps embraces it and has a weekly pot smoking night in the club house.

I don't even think States should have as much power. The lower level the power is placed, then the more freedoms people have to organize, move around and enjoy their freedoms. With States, gerrymandering becomes an issue and it's possible people in a state do want to smoke pot, but the state won't allow it. If it were pushed down to a local community level, then a person can more easily move to a different community than a different state.

[TripleB]

Have you thought about throwing some Noam Chomsky into your libertarian reading? He is a renowned libertarian but comes at things from a slightly different angle than Harry Browne on certain issues.

I haven't heard of him, but I'm check him out. Thanks for the suggestion. I recently read Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson and am currently pushing through HB's works. I'll likely do a post in the near future when I'm done with HB for suggestions on other works to read.

[Pointedstick]

The rules should be decided on the lowest level possible to make them as easy to opt out as possible. I'm completely OK with a condo association banning marijuana use on their property. If a group of condo owners decide they don't want to smell it, or be subject to "stoned" people, let them ban it. It's not oppressive because not all Condos will ban it, and a pot smoker could move to another community, which perhaps embraces it and has a weekly pot smoking night in the club house.

That right there. +1.

[doodle]

I don't think is really the issue. I think that when a group of people live together (whether that is a family, condo, city, state, federal govt) decisions must be made that will affect the group as a whole. Someone must make the decisions and someone must enforce the decisions. Leadership and power structures always emerge among groups of people. Of course the Non-Agression Principle should apply as much as possible, but there are issues that arise that require enforcement. Think of our Earth as a giant spaceship enterprise....there is a reasons why a captain exists.

You're quite right. But outside of government, we usually have the ability to choose which power structures we're subject to. Many left-leaning people object to the top-down hierarchical power structures of corporations, and they're right that corporations are basically mini-dictatorships. But the good news is you can choose whether or not to be subject to their rule! As you said in another thread, if you don't like it, you can leave! Same with your oft-repeated condo example. You can sell your condo and move into another condo development with better leadership, or move into a single-family house, or buy rural land and build your own house… you have options!

Theoretically you have options....but realistically it is a bit more complicated.

The problem with government is that its monopolized territory and spheres of influence are so vast that it reduces options in proportion to its size and power. I can get away from my town's laws by moving to another town, but I can't escape the federal government's laws without moving to an entirely different country, with presents significant barriers such as different languages and currencies, laws banning certain financial or physical products, etc. The barriers are much much higher.

In the absence of a unifying federal government moving from one town to another in the United States might be the same as moving to another country. It could involve totally different electric appliances, currency, language....and the fact that they might not want you to move there and not give you permission to do so.

In principle, I would have far fewer complaints living under the government of your hypothetical  100-person village than I do about living under a monolithic government that rules 310 million people. The smaller and more local the government, the more say individuals have in its decision-making process. Imagine if your condo board had 5,000 people on it and governed all the housing developments in the entire state of Florida. Would you expect it to make decisions that were are sane as it presumably does now?

I'm not disagreeing with you that government that is closest to the people is the best. But I just think that you are proposing a model of society that discounts and underestimates a lot of real world complexities and it would have an effect on economic productivity. One of the reason why the Euro currency and Euro zone was created was to facilitate more efficient economic development in the Eurozone.

Imagine traveling through the United States trying to deliver your goods to different customers in different states if every town you passed through had seperate tariffs set up and regulations about trucking. Maybe some towns never decided to build or maintain their roads. Maybe they wouldn't allow certain things to be shipped through their territory because these items competed with one of their local industries. I mean the whole thing sounds like chaos.

[Pointedstick]

But I just think that you are proposing a model of society that discounts and underestimates a lot of real world complexities and it would have an effect on economic productivity. One of the reason why the Euro currency and Euro zone was created was to facilitate more efficient economic development in the Eurozone.

Boy, that worked great. 

Still, I get what you're saying. The thing is, the private sector deals with this all the time. Cell phone networks are a great example. We have GSM and CDMA and they're not compatible. But in practice, the market mechanism solves this problem by producing devices that can work on either, while the cell networks work together to create a next-gen network that's standardized, because it benefits them to individually not need to put up as many towers.

These standardization problems exist, but the market already solves them organically at a cost only to whose who use the affected products and services, while the government solves them by imposing solutions that might not be the most efficient now, or even ever, all the while passing the costs to everyone, including those who don't use them.

[TripleB]

But I just think that you are proposing a model of society that discounts and underestimates a lot of real world complexities and it would have an effect on economic productivity. One of the reason why the Euro currency and Euro zone was created was to facilitate more efficient economic development in the Eurozone.

Boy, that worked great. 

My first thought, too! Ah, the successful Euro! 

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, I've noticed that you like using the word "chaos" to denote a system's unsuitability. But that chaos is a feature for us, because chaos often organically evolves an order to it. The best example is the ecological system we all live in that you're fond of worrying about. It's the most chaotic system of all, yet from its chaos sprung all life.

A system doesn't need a central planner to produce beautiful outcomes. Just look at nature all around you. In fact, don't your environmental arguments basically boil down to the assertion that humans are bad ecological central planners, that nature makes its own way without us and that we're harming it by trying to manipulate it?

[doodle]

Doodle, I've noticed that you like using the word "chaos" to denote a system's unsuitability. But that chaos is a feature for us, because chaos often organically evolves an order to it. The best example is the ecological system we all live in that you're fond of worrying about. It's the most chaotic system of all, yet from its chaos sprung all life.

A system doesn't need a central planner to produce beautiful outcomes. Just look at nature all around you. In fact, don't your environmental arguments basically boil down to the assertion that humans are bad ecological central planners, that nature makes its own way without us and that we're harming it by trying to manipulate it?

You are making a very big assumption that there is no central planner.

I agree, your system would allow humans to live. It would just be a totally different world....and maybe one full of unforeseen consequences and problems.

I envision something akin to feudalism emerging from what you are suggesting:

Feudalism usually emerged as a result of the decentralization of an empire: especially in the Japanese and Carolingian (European) empires which both lacked the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to support cavalry without the ability to allocate land to these mounted troops. Mounted soldiers began to secure a system of hereditary rule over their allocated land and their power over the territory came to encompass the social, political, judicial, and economic spheres.[13]

These acquired powers significantly diminished centralized power in these empires. Only when the infrastructure existed to maintain centralized power—as with the European monarchies—did Feudalism begin to yield to this new organized power and eventually disappear.

[doodle]

I would argue that the economic development that we have achieved today is in large part because of our government structure, not in spite of it.

Maybe a study of Greek city states would elluminate some idea of what the type of world you are suggesting would look like?

After the Greek dark ages, exciting things began to happen in ancient Greece. Villages started to band together to form strong trading centers. These groups of villages that banded together were called city-states. Soon, hundreds of city-states had formed in ancient Greece.

TO BE A CITIZEN OF A CITY-STATE: The ancient Greeks referred to themselves as citizens of their individual city-states. Each city-state (polis) had its own personality, goals, laws and customs. Ancient Greeks were very loyal to their city-state.

The city-states had many things in common. They all believed in the same gods. They all spoke the same language. 

But if you asked an ancient Greek where he was from, he would not say, "I live in Greece." 

If he was from Sparta, he would say, "I am  Spartan."

If he lived in Athens, he would say, "I am Athenian."

And so it went. The city-states might band together to fight a common foe, but they also went to war with each other.

There was no central government in ancient Greece. Each city-state had its own form of government. Some city-states, like Corinth, were ruled by kings. Some, like Sparta, were ruled by a small group of men. Others, like Athens, experimented with new forms of government.

[Pointedstick]

There have been many historical city-states that one could study. Greek ones, Italian renaissance city states, the enormous patchwork quilt of Germanic city states prior to unification, etc.

These cities offered enormous economic advantages and great freedom due to the ease of moving between them, but their primary problem was weakness in the face of a centralized military foe. They couldn't stand up to the state war machines and were gobbled up.

My solution to that: every city-state has nuclear weapons. They're the ultimate war preventers.

[doodle]

There have been many historical city-states that one could study. Greek ones, Italian renaissance city states, the enormous patchwork quilt of Germanic city states prior to unification, etc.

These cities offered enormous economic advantages and great freedom due to the ease of moving between them, but their primary problem was weakness in the face of a centralized military foe. They couldn't stand up to the state war machines and were gobbled up.

My solution to that: every city-state has nuclear weapons. They're the ultimate war preventers.

Ease of moving between them? Weren't travelers always on the lookout for being hit by maurauding groups like Robin Hood?

Your nuclear solution sounds pretty cataclysmic!

[TripleB]

Ease of moving between them? Weren't travelers always on the lookout for being hit by maurauding groups like Robin Hood?

If a binary option is provided, between being hit by marauders or being subject to the whims of an oppressive government, I'd rather fight marauders because at least I have a shot at winning.

If marauders tried to steal my money and guns, I could shoot back at them. If the government comes at me to steal my money/guns, it's a guaranteed death sentence for me if I try to fight back.

[doodle]

Ease of moving between them? Weren't travelers always on the lookout for being hit by maurauding groups like Robin Hood?

If a binary option is provided, between being hit by marauders or being subject to the whims of an oppressive government, I'd rather fight marauders because at least I have a shot at winning.

If marauders tried to steal my money and guns, I could shoot back at them. If the government comes at me to steal my money/guns, it's a guaranteed death sentence for me if I try to fight back.

Yes, you could. But I doubt we would be having a discussion about it online because my guess is that the economy of the world would revert back to something like that of pre-industrial Europe.

I really don't care all that much which system we live under anymore. I have my preferences for what I think might be the best compromise but ultimately I'll learn to get along with what Ive got. I work with a woman who lived for 40 years in the Soviet Union. People got along and adapted. Ultimately, humans will find joy and happiness under any system. Even in opressive Cuba there is joy and laughter. Sometimes I think that adversity might even be a positive contributing factor to human health and happiness.

[murphy_p_t]

"There is no reason why Amendments are set in stone. "

Part of the problem w/ this statement is that the underlying assumption is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by the State. Same with freedom of speech, association, etc. This is incorrect. The right (and duty) to suitable self defense is comes from God, Natural Law, part of our human nature, etc. The duty to protect oneself is not granted by government...rather it is primordial.

The 2nd amendment simply recognizes this fact. To be denied our human freedom is to be placed under totalitarian oppression.

What defines "suitable"? Can I plant landmines on my front lawn? Can I bury a missile silo in my backyard and stock it full of nuclear and chemical warheads. By many peoples logic here, no one has the right to decide this definition of suitable but the individual.

Tools of war which a soldier/infantryman/militiaman can carry should be allowed by 2nd amendment ("keep" and "bear"). A single troop cannot shoulder a nuclear warhead today...neither could they shoulder ("bear") a cannon back in revolutionary war days. Re: landmines: this is unit equipment, not equipment of a single infantryman...to allow this, in my mind, would stretch the 2nd amendment beyond what it states...as this is born by a military unit, not a single infantryman.

[murphy_p_t]

Anytime you attempt to overthrow a government with less than the majority of people on your side, you are entering into dangerous waters. If the country is split 50/50 then weapons will simply lead to a bloodbath civil war. If the numbers in oppposition to the government are 80 / 20 there is a pretty good chance that government wont last long if the people decide to just go on strike and flood the streets.

What was the percent of Crown supporters in the colonies during the Revolutionary War period?