The Lord of War comes to the U.S.

[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?

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

I'm talking about those "permanantly locked up pscopaths" burt mentioned, not just any regular old felon

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Anyway, you already can wheel and deal as you please with firearms, provided you aren't using them for illegal purposes.

I consider background checks, waiting periods, and all other associated paper work antithetical to the ideal. They only exist because of criminals.

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

Then should Colt and FN be held liable for selling to the US and our allies? They know what we're going to be doing with their products. The only difference between us and them is our ideological goals. Nobody ever fights on what they would consider to be the "wrong side", members of FARC have the same sense of duty and righteousness as any legitimate army.

It's possible Viktor Bout genuinely believes that what he is doing is right. He doesn't see hurting Americans as wrong because we are not on his side.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter

I'm talking about those "permanantly locked up pscopaths" burt mentioned, not just any regular old felon

Except that he's considering unfit to own a firearm as somehow equivalent to being worthy of permanent lockup and/or death sentence.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

I consider background checks, waiting periods, and all other associated paper work antithetical to the ideal. They only exist because of criminals.

Unfortunately, the world rarely works in "ideal" ways. Wanting to fulfill some sort of ideal is just not rational.

Those measures also exist because of people other than criminals - again, children, the mentally ill, people who aren't citizens, etc. Liberty isn't about being able to do anything you want without any laws whatsoever. It's about having the least intrusive government possible, which is not the same thing as complete anarchy. Most reasonable people accept that their personal liberty has limits where there are tensions with societal cohesion. And this isn't something new, either - John Locke, and Montesquieu, and almost every philosopher who inspired the founding fathers agreed. What people like you promote is basically total freedom for its own sake, as opposed to freedom for the sake of preserving life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which is the intent of classic American liberalism).

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

Then should Colt and FN be held liable for selling to the US and our allies? They know what we're going to be doing with their products. The only difference between us and them is our ideological goals. Nobody ever fights on what they would consider to be the "wrong side", members of FARC have the same sense of duty and righteousness as any legitimate army.

"The only difference"? You talk about that like it's trivial? Are you so morally bankrupt that you see no important difference between the U.S. government and FARC?

This is quite curious to me. Libertarians claim to be "patriots", and yet when it comes to foreign policy, their sense of moral equivalence (equating the U.S. with FARC, as you are doing now) reeks of the same sort of idiocy I hear from leftists. Of course, it's possible (albeit rare) for leftists to be right about some things for the wrong reasons, but I still don't get how the Libertarians don't see how similar they are to the people they despise. If they had their way, America would be unassertive in the world.

Actually, it's one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a Libertarian...they talk so much naive bullshit about foreign affairs that I find them impossible to respect on almost anything else.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

It's possible Viktor Bout genuinely believes that what he is doing is right. He doesn't see hurting Americans as wrong because we are not on his side.

Then we have no reason to see ourselves as wrong because he's hurting us. Besides, Bout isn't helping FARC for ideological reasons, anyway. His cause is himself, and profiting by selling weapons to people who need them but shouldn't have them. Leaving FARC and the U.S. aside, anyone who doesn't think it's wrong to sell weapons to people who use them to carry out ethnic cleaning, genocide, and campaigns of terror (like most of Bout's customers) obviously is not right in the head.