re: Can anyone defend being a libertarian anymore?

me:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You:
Holy bad fricking example to use. The Second Amendment is an individual right.

Me:
I never said it did.

quote:
You're falling into the anti-gun trap of focusing on the prefatory clause.


It's not a trap, it's a clause. I'm not discussing the right to bear arms, I'm discussing the Founders' discussion of common 'defence'.

You're falling into the pro-gun trap of completely ignoring some of what our Founders had to say. You provide the classic response, a total knee-jerk reaction to the mention of the prefatory clause.

Again, I'm not talking about the individual right to bear arms, but the collective necessity for defense.

You can't just do anything you want, you give up individual liberties by pledging allegiance to the laws of society in exchange for collective security.

And here you go off on some tangent:
K...

quote:
The REALLY fricking crazy thing about the 2nd Amendment is how absolutely blind people are to this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

There's nothing "individual" about the militia. And the militia is NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a free STATE.
quote:
it's a clause

A prefatory clause.

You can look that up.

quote:
You're falling into the pro-gun trap

There we go. It's always better when you people just admit who you are.

Then I replied:
The REALLY fricking crazy thing about the 2nd Amendment is how absolutely blind people are to this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

There's nothing "individual" about the militia. And the militia is NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a free STATE.





Because I wasn't talking about the right to bear arms, or the rights of any militias. But whenever I bring up the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, FOR ANY REASON, I am met with a prefabricated wall of assumptions and presumptions that may or may not have anything to do with the point.

The Constitution recognizes the need for militias for the security of the state, and the duty of the government to provide for "common defence". Militias being a collective function of the polity for the collective security of the polity. All I needed for an example was simply the recognition in the Constitution of the need for militia and security to make my point.

Don't blame me because you wanted to wander off into your comfortable 2nd Amendment argument. My rights to own, and carry either concealed or not, an unregistered firearm in the state of Louisiana are still being protected by the state regardless of your opinion on the perfunctory clause of the 2nd Amendment.

quote:

---

You're attempting to use the same bullshite argument that anti-gun idiots use

---

That's where your assumptions come out, you're trying to anticipate an argument that isn't there.

I make so such argument whatsoever in this thread about the right of the individual to bear arms. You simply expect it, so you see it.

I'm pointing out parts of the Constitution that I believe support the concept of protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem.

Does the perfunctory clause of the Second Amendment serve other purposes? Sure, and I'm sure you're familiar with just about all of them. I'm merely looking for recognition of terms to support my point: some liberty is given away for security in all societies. That's part of what defines a society.

That really triggered you, didn't it?

I know a lot guys who I consider "pro-gun" and are very insecure about their right to bear arms such that they are prone to defensiveness. I appreciate my right to bear arms, and I feel secure with my right to do so here in Louisiana. I don't consider myself "pro-gun" as I don't really consider myself "pro-knife" either.

quote:

---

Trump's current party is closer to the Libertarians than GOP of yesterday.

---

not on the border

which was THE big difference between the GOP and Libertarians,, that and drugs

Lol fanni and definitions

Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go. If we could have a complete reset and start fresh, that is how it should be done.

But it relies too heavily on people being good to each other, so it would never work.

I was a hardcore Libertarian about 10 years ago. Then I grew up.
Its premise sounds nice, but it’s a utopian ideology that ignores reality. That being said, I’d rather a 20 something college kid (like myself a decade ago) gravitate towards that than it’s polar opposite AKA Marxism.

quote:

---

Just end the state, bro!

---

I wish we could. That would solve a lot of problems.

Start fresh, and keep it the way the Founders intended it to be.

quote:

---

. You gave your definition of what you believe civic nationalism is,

---

Wrong. After reading the link you posted, I said this, specifically:

quote:

---

"Civic nationalism" isn't really defined well, but I can tell you that I do not support ethnic nationalism, in basically any form you can created based on the vagueness relied on in that article.

You can go back a few pages to see me describe why.

---

The article you posted didn't even define it well, and I commented as much. I gave no definition at all.

quote:

---

Not sure I follow.

---

Go back and read the discussion digression.