TheCatalyst

agreed

Hey. I wanted to tell you that I think you're amazing for presenting and standing up for your beliefs on a website that has users who for the most part do not agree with you. You are now one of my heroes.
that is all.

I see where you're coming from.

I know you're going to disagree, but I don't think Ron Paul is as much of a libertarian as a state's right advocate. He didn't seem to answer "let them" as much as he answered "let the states decide." Although that seems more libertarian than federal power, in some states (like mine), that would be farther from the libertarian ideals. From a liberal perspective, of course.

Hey, I have a question. Many libertarians have supported Ron Paul throughout the 2012 election. Why wasn't there the same support for Johnson?

First of all, I would now like you to point out where I said that gun control will eliminate mass murder --- oh what's that, you can't? That's probably because I never claimed it would. I am saying that gun control helps in the fight against these issues.

On freedom, sorry mate but I'm afraid we are much freer than you. Not only do we rank higher in official democracy rankings, but also we enjoy a lot more social and media freedom than you. We also have effective watchdogs against government corruption, and the things you think that are tools of tyranny are also monitored and controlled by civilian organizations. Freedom is being able to hold to account and denounce those in charge when they do wrong. How many Americans are truly able to do that these days? The police are a military? What are you talking about? Also, having CCTV cameras in public places helps in the fight against crime. How is it an infringement on your freedom to have public places monitored to watch for people breaking the law? Or perhaps you think the government uses the cameras to watch for dissenters or political opponents and then arrest them for "re-education" - your ideas on the UK are laguable friend. We can also travel to more countries with no visa than US citizens can. And we have the freedom not to be stitched up by **** insurance companies when we need healthcare.

This position is so ridiculous, and that's such a cop-out answer.When air pollution gets bad and makes people sick, the government introduces clean air laws to protect their health. When drunk drivers run people over and kill them, the government introduces stricter laws governing drink-driving, and sponsors mass advertising to deter people from doing it. People walk into schools and cinemas and shoot the place up, and when gun control laws restricting type, size, ammunition of weapons is mentioned, people start talking about the government turning them into slaves or sheep. It's absolutely frickin' ridiculous. Do you think we British are any more sheep-like as a result of gun-control? We rank higher than the US in democratic rankings, and our people are considered FREER than yours. What do you say to that? Sounds to me like you're the one drinking the kool-aid my friend.

Gun control is constitutional because the kind of gun control people propose is not an all-out ban, but a restriction on the amount and type of arms people can hold. That is in line with Supreme Court ruling, which said that the right to bear arms was LIMITED. Just as you can't get your hands on certain arms already, extending it to things like automatic weapons and assault rifles, and limiting the amound of ammunition you keep is absolutely logical and constitutional. The pro-gun camp just loves to get people riled up talking about their rights being trampled over. But the real gun-control supporters are not proposing anything that isn't fair and reasonable.

But gun control IS constitutional, and you need to stop thinking that "gun control" means removing weapons from everyone. That's not necessarily what it means. We ban drugs knowing that some people still get their hands on them, it's not an argument against initiating controls that can protect thousands of people. The US should be aiming to REDUCE its number of gun-related incidents, and gun control can help that. Without gun control, the numbers of gun-related murders, attacks etc is going up and up. Canada has some measure of gun control, but people still have guns, and they have hardly any gun crime, don't you think that in a country like the states, gun control might actually bring aobut benefits? And stop bleating about your right to bear arms, it's also people's right not to feel intimidated knowing many people around them might be armed. Gun control is constitutional, as ruled by the Supreme Court. And as for armed revolution - really? When would that ever ACTUALLY happen in the modern US? Do you not see how much of a smokescreen these arguments are?

These arguments are speculative at best. The vast majority of people who would try and break into your home are relying on stealth. They don't come to your house with the express purpose of murdering you and taking your stuff. That's why dogs and alarms are effective. Someone was trying to break into my apartment in Beijing once, and the dog scared them off with her crazy barking. It's not the dog itself, but the attention it draws to them. It seems to me that the pro-gun camp is determined to convince us that everyone is out to murder us with guns. Wouldn't you say that gun control is advantageous because it can vastly reduce such terrible things from happening? No pro gun-control people will reasonably claim that it will eliminate the problem entirely, but that's no reason not to do it. Having the police doesn't eliminate crime entirely, but we have them anyway. Are you seriously saying that it's safe to encourage more people to carry guns for protection? It seems far more likely accidents will happen in those kind of circumstances. China has absolute gun control and the result is practically no gun violence. The politican ins and outs are different, but the point is, gun control can help A LOT.