The Lord of War comes to the U.S.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Then let this be the precedent. If you are really indifferent to the idea of men like Viktor Bout profiting from civil wars, then you must be an extremely cynical person. I don't see how you can't feel some degree of disgust and outrage at such evil actions. Anyone who would sell weapons to men like Mullah Omar or Charles Taylor - repeatedly - needs to be locked up.

What about other people who would do business with those kinds of people? What about people who help them obtain medical supplies, fuel, and food? Not weapons, but necessary for the effort, and therefore an indirect means of killing our soldiers.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

What about other people who would do business with those kinds of people? What about people who help them obtain medical supplies, fuel, and food? Not weapons, but necessary for the effort, and therefore an indirect means of killing our soldiers.

Come on, do you really think there's no difference between a gun (which is designed to kill) versus food or medicine? Selling weapons is far more important to a rebel army's ability to wage war than food, fuel, or medical supplies. There is a reason that most sane human beings think it's intuitive that convicted criminals not be allowed to own lethal weapons, and that this be written into law. The same logic applies to war lords and terrorists.

That being said, there are economic sanctions that can be placed on rogue regimes and militant groups which prohibit observing parties to the sanctions from selling anything to them.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Come on, do you really think there's no difference between a gun (which is designed to kill) versus food or medicine? Selling weapons is far more important to a rebel army's ability to wage war than food, fuel, or medical supplies. There is a reason that most sane human beings think it's intuitive that convicted criminals not be allowed to own lethal weapons, and that this be written into law. The same logic applies to war lords and terrorists.

That being said, there are economic sanctions that can be placed on rogue regimes and militant groups which prohibit observing parties to the sanctions from selling anything to them.

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.

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.

[MT2008]

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".

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).

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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).

Some people are just too damn unpredictable to have a gun. However, criminals generally don't care what the law says and if they want guns, they'll buy illegal ones or steal them

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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).

If it makes me safer by permanently locking up psychopaths AND allowing me absolute liberty to wheel and deal as I please with firearms, then yes, I would gladly pay the higher taxes.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

If it makes me safer by permanently locking up psychopaths AND allowing me absolute liberty to wheel and deal as I please with firearms, then yes, I would gladly pay the higher taxes.

Just fucking kill them. That's what we would have done a hundred years ago

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter

Just fucking kill them. That's what we would have done a hundred years ago

I have no idea how serious you are about this, but unless you want us to become like one of the fascist/communist countries that conservatives and libertarians bitch about endlessly, I'd hope you understand this is contrary to American principles. Killing people who have committed any felony involving firearms (and remember that murder isn't the only one) would make us more like Saudi Arabia, China, or Nazi Germany than all of the health care bills Obama could ever push through Congress.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

If it makes me safer by permanently locking up psychopaths AND allowing me absolute liberty to wheel and deal as I please with firearms, then yes, I would gladly pay the higher taxes.

Until you see how high those taxes are.

Anyway, you already can wheel and deal as you please with firearms, provided you aren't using them for illegal purposes. This is not about whether you sell a gun to somebody who you had no reason to believe was a murderer. This about whether you sell a weapon to somebody who you know for sure is planning to use it to kill somebody, and you do it anyway. Obviously, that's not a situation an average FFL or even most private sellers in the U.S. would experience. But metaphorically, this is the equivalent of what Viktor Bout did.

Personally, I don't regard a law which makes it illegal for me to sell weapons to criminals as an infringement on my personal liberty, or collective liberty. I regard it as common sense. So do most Americans, including those who own and sell guns. Actually, I would think that selling weapons to bad people who you know will use them in murder, and not feeling any guilt about your actions whatsoever, is characteristic of a "psychopath" (bearing in mind that lack of empathy and remorse are key sociopathic personality traits). I'm sure that a psychological profile of Viktor Bout (and most men like him) would identify him as a textbook sociopath or possibly psychopath.

And I hate to break it to you, but just because somebody is not considered trustworthy with firearms doesn't mean they need to be locked up. That's an extremely fallacious assumption. There's a good reason why it's illegal for minors, those with mental illnesses, or even people who have committed minor criminal acts to own firearms. Do you lock up all of those people because they aren't considered trustworthy to own firearms?