Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache
I never said there was no difference, but you cant have an army of nothing rifleman, therefore any other form of support is still somewhat complicit in whatever damages occur.
|
That would be like saying that the doctor who treats a criminal for a broken hand (which the criminal needs to hold/fire a gun) is complicit in any crimes he commits afterwards.
Also, many rebel armies don't rely much on hired logistics; they get what they need by looting and stealing. This is what the R.U.F. in Sierra Leone (one of Bout's customers) did; they were pretty much bandits masquerading as "freedom fighters".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache
And as far as criminals owning weapons goes, I believe that if you can't be trusted with a firearm then you can't be trusted with freedom. If you are walking the streets than you should be allowed to have a gun, if you are too dangerous to have a gun then you are too dangerous to be walking the streets.
|
I've heard this argument before (when I used to post on Libertarian Facebook groups). Do you want to pay MORE taxes to keep these people in prison? That would seem rather ill-libertarian, if so. America already imprisons more people per-capita than almost any industrialized country in the world (so many criminals get reduced sentences because of this).