Bob Barr Bolts

To the contrary, it is entirely different and therefore a poor anology. Meth is manufactured for the specific purpose of causing intoxication of the person using the meth. A firearm is made to shoot, but not for the specific purpose of shooting any particular thing (including it's owner). Regardless, we know that a many children are harmed every year by their parents' use of meth. If you are willing to accept the consequences of meth use, you may be willing to make it legal. We've apparently decided that the consequences of alcohol use are acceptable. But the notion that meth use constitutes a "victimless crime" is incorrect and untrue.
Click to expand...
oh cmon now

A firearm is made to shoot a living thing. Animal or human. That it can be used for putting holes in paper does not change the fact that a gun is designed to shoot a bullet in order to destroy living tissue.

We know many children are harmed every year by their parents misuse of firearms. I am willing to accept the consequences of personal responbility. I am not willing to accept you or anyone else telling me what combination of chemicals to put in my own body.

Meth use is a victimless crime. Anything done or not done because of the use of meth can be a crime unto itself but the sheer act of using meth, just like the sheer act of owning a gun, does not have a victim.
 
Most Looney Libertarians I know personally are weed smokers who are seeking some kind of justification for their drug use.
Click to expand...
That's what they said about all those crazies that wanted to legalize alcohol! Damn those losers and their beer.
 
Most Looney Libertarians I know personally are weed smokers who are seeking some kind of justification for their drug use.
Click to expand...
Hmm -- that's not what I've encountered. While I am not a card carrying "Big L" Libertarian, the reason I'm not has nothing to do with the issue of drug legalization -- even though I do NOT use drugs that are illegal. I don't drink alcohol or smoke, for that matter. But I do feel that the government has no business restricting otherwise free, responsible citizens from doing such. I am not a "Big L" Libertarian because of the unrealistically pacifistic portion of their platform, a whole 'nuther issue entirely. Which is beside the drug legalization point, a standpoint that I share with the "Big L" Libertarians. While I don't deny that there are some societal ills that come from the use of SOME drugs, I also assert that the societal ills that come from the efforts of the government to prevent people from using such drugs is even that much more damaging, and the effect of driving the commerce in such drugs underground promotes a thriving black market that breeds real thugs that are genuinely hazards to society. Incidentally, the prohibition on alcohol during that day produced the exact same effects -- overbearing government intruding on the civil rights of the citizenry while at the same time enabling a black market that bred a virulent class of professional criminals. Legalization and taxation squashed that cold, and will similarly squash the same ills we face with illicit drugs.
 
Libertarians pacifist?

No way. Most Libertarians I know are gun owners and have no problem using those firearms to defend their friends, family and country.

Don't confuse "non initiation of force" with pacifism. Just because I won't hit first doesn't mean I won't hit last.

Oh, and I am not only a Libertarian but a member of the army who has served two tours in Iraq.
 
Most Looney Libertarians I know personally are weed smokers who are seeking some kind of justification for their drug use.

Try going to a Libertarian party meeting sometime. They make Mormons look like party animals in comparison (well, at least the one I went to, anyway). I have never met a more serious bunch in my life.
 
No way. Most Libertarians I know are gun owners and have no problem using those firearms to defend their friends, family and country.
Click to expand...
Gun owners? Sure. RKBA is pretty much a given with Libertarians.

Protect themselves, family & friends? Sure. That's part of taking responsibility for yourself and those who you choose to.

Protect country? Uhmmm, that's where the problem crops up. That's where the pacifistic tendencies manifest themselves. I distinctly remember the immediate aftermath of 9-11, a time when I had seriously been considering joining up and becoming a "card carrying Big L" Libertarian. I distinctly remember the "Big L Libertarian" leadership and commentary condemn even the concept of retaliatory strikes against those responsible for the actions and those who harbored, aided and abetted them. Meaning, they were all in support of the protection of our borders and our citizens in principle but were against actual operations against the enemy. Double talk, in other words, and that's when I sadly turned my back on them.

Personally, I am in favor of a strong, well manned, well supplied, well equipped, ALL VOLUNTEER military which is capable of offensive operations as well as defensive operations. From what I can tell, the "Big L" Libertarians desire to limit the capability of offensive operations and scale defensive capabilities back to what can only be described as absolute minimums, and minimize R&D expenditures as well -- which is penny wise but pound foolish.

Largely, this comes about as a mindset (that is shared by the dedicated Libertarians as well as many of those of the Left) that for the largest part, the world consists of reasonable people and their respective leaders who are generally friendly towards us and genuinely desire peace, freedom and prosperity. That is, sadly, not really the case and as such that mindset is just plain naive. It becomes like a set of blinders to the evil of the world. The world is a cruel place and we have to recognize that and prepare for and be prepared to react on unreasonable actions that border on lunacy.
 
This thread reminds me of the time when Bart Simpson was running against Martin Prince for class president. You see Martin's group first, putting up a sign that reads "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy". Then you pan to Bart's group putting up their campaign sign, which reads "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy." :)

Fremmer, good point - I'll have to think about this some - I know Redworm & I are right, but now I gotta figure out why, now that you have raised that distinction. :p
 
"Try going to a Libertarian party meeting sometime. They make Mormons look like party animals in comparison (well, at least the one I went to, anyway). I have never met a more serious bunch in my life."

Why do you think I call 'em "looney Libertarians"? I've been to their meetings. If this were the 60's, our Libertarians would be a bunch of hippies on a commune...

No thanks. I'll just with hold my meager political contributions. Although, after what Taft the Turd has done for Republicans in Ohio, I'll support conservative pols of either party.
 
I'm quite sure that Redworm is not harmed when, say, a mother uses Meth. But the mother's children will be harmed. While mom is laying on the couch so tweaked out that she can hardly move, the kids are sitting in dirty diapers. The house is bug-infested and trashed. The kids have not had a bath in two weeks, and a three-year old is trying to console a screaming 5 month old infant who has not been fed in hours. It is true that Redworm is not a victim in this situation. And he won't be a victim when the police have to remove those kids and put them in foster care. And when everyone has to spend months in court hoping that mom can kick the meth and get her act together. I suppose the only true victims are the kids. And maybe the taxpayers who have to pay for it all.
Click to expand...

You have identified a situation with victims here. But you have misidentified the crime. The crime isn't use of meth. The crime is child neglect.
 
Meth is manufactured for the specific purpose of causing intoxication of the person using the meth.
Click to expand...

Amphetamines are also used by the United States Airforce - issued to the pilots to fly repeated missions while going without sleep for 72 hours. I am sure you're going to tell me those F-16 pilots are eeeeevil reefer addicts. Wait, no?

Or is meth evil except when you're using it to fight terrorism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top