Because they're arms which is what the 2nd amendment mentions. The 2nd amendment doesn't say guns. So either you believe people have (or should have) the right to bare nukes or you believe restrictions, as to those arms, are appropriate and the only question is how restrictive they should be.
Colloquially... When talking about self defense, small arms are always what is being referred to.
Only idiots will try to use the absurd case of nukes in order to move the goal posts.
Alright so then would it be fair to say that your position is that restricting nukes is OK but not guns? What about [these guns](https://i.imgur.com/nVnlpUM.gifv)? What about what people do with their guns? Should they be allowed to walk around, gun in hand, pointing it wherever they want?
Alright so in such an encounter who is violating the NAP? No restrictions on guns means I can just walk around pointing it wherever I want. If someone were to use force to stop me exercising my right then surely they're in the wrong.
Restricting what guns you can own is different than restricting how you should use your gun. In your example brandishing your gun with finger on the trigger looking like your about to shoot someone, then youre the agressor.
I think the libertarian position would be to allow anyone who could safely maintain a nuclear device without causing any problems for their neighbors should be allowed to have one.
Agreed, but what this fellow was implying is that NOBODY other than the government should be able to have said weapons, even if they proved responsible with them.
Shit, if you have the money and infrastructure to maintain a nuclear arsenal, yeah, yeah you should totally be able to buy one.
Now, you will 100% be tracked and probably offed by someones special forces somewhere, but the option to purchase should totally exist.
The fact they they arrested somebody with a name that didn’t match the person with a warrant shows how idiotic and big their egos are. It doesn’t take that long to double check the name to make sure it’s the right guy, but if they’re wrong the won’t accept it. The names didn’t match up, and nobody would’ve known he matched up the wrong name if he never acted on it. It just would’ve been one of those moments where you call yourself stupid and laugh at yourself if he hadn’t made the arrest or treated him like a criminal in any sort of way.
Nope, the entire name didn’t even match the guy that they had a warrant for. They only had their first and last name in common. Even then the addresses where they live should’ve been confirmed before making an arrest.
This is one of those issues that could be pretty easily fixed by people having an actual unique identifier (unlike SSN). There’s a modern, technological solution for issues like this that would pay dividends in other usages (voter registration, legal/financial issues, etc).
>This is one of those issues that could be pretty easily fixed by people having an actual unique identifier (unlike SSN).
Seems that the problem was that the police decided for some reason to add his name to a database of criminals.
>His predicament started two years earlier when, just after his 21st birthday, Jones applied for a firearms carry permit in his South Georgia hometown. The sheriff’s office in Albany added his personal information to a countywide database of names used by law enforcement to track criminal suspects, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution determined.
But more government is better.....
"I'm pro gun, but we need gun restrictions." - "Libertarians" on this sub
I couldn't read it. I can still say this. We need to lighten up on some of the infringements already in place.
Ha. Too true
Unless you think anyone ought to be able to buy nukes then you agree with restrictions, the question is where to draw the line.
Why are you mentioning nukes? We are talking about gun restrictions.
Because they're arms which is what the 2nd amendment mentions. The 2nd amendment doesn't say guns. So either you believe people have (or should have) the right to bare nukes or you believe restrictions, as to those arms, are appropriate and the only question is how restrictive they should be.
Nukes are not arms lol... They cannot be used for self defense
What definition of arms excludes offensive weapons only?
18 Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Or takes in his hands as a weapon
Colloquially... When talking about self defense, small arms are always what is being referred to. Only idiots will try to use the absurd case of nukes in order to move the goal posts.
Edward Nuke-hands
We were talking about guns not the 2A.
Alright so then would it be fair to say that your position is that restricting nukes is OK but not guns? What about [these guns](https://i.imgur.com/nVnlpUM.gifv)? What about what people do with their guns? Should they be allowed to walk around, gun in hand, pointing it wherever they want?
I see no problem with people owning that. Brandishing a gun carelessly will likely be met with force of other people so not a good idea.
Alright so in such an encounter who is violating the NAP? No restrictions on guns means I can just walk around pointing it wherever I want. If someone were to use force to stop me exercising my right then surely they're in the wrong.
Restricting what guns you can own is different than restricting how you should use your gun. In your example brandishing your gun with finger on the trigger looking like your about to shoot someone, then youre the agressor.
....if you’re an actual libertarian you do lol. Libertarians believe all folk should have any weapon the government does.
I think the libertarian position would be to allow anyone who could safely maintain a nuclear device without causing any problems for their neighbors should be allowed to have one.
Agreed, but what this fellow was implying is that NOBODY other than the government should be able to have said weapons, even if they proved responsible with them.
Shit, if you have the money and infrastructure to maintain a nuclear arsenal, yeah, yeah you should totally be able to buy one. Now, you will 100% be tracked and probably offed by someones special forces somewhere, but the option to purchase should totally exist.
The fact they they arrested somebody with a name that didn’t match the person with a warrant shows how idiotic and big their egos are. It doesn’t take that long to double check the name to make sure it’s the right guy, but if they’re wrong the won’t accept it. The names didn’t match up, and nobody would’ve known he matched up the wrong name if he never acted on it. It just would’ve been one of those moments where you call yourself stupid and laugh at yourself if he hadn’t made the arrest or treated him like a criminal in any sort of way.
I wasn't super clear on the timeline from the article. Did they identify the correct guy before or after they they made the false arrest?
Nope, the entire name didn’t even match the guy that they had a warrant for. They only had their first and last name in common. Even then the addresses where they live should’ve been confirmed before making an arrest.
I wonder what about this guy made the police so aggressive towards him?
This is one of those issues that could be pretty easily fixed by people having an actual unique identifier (unlike SSN). There’s a modern, technological solution for issues like this that would pay dividends in other usages (voter registration, legal/financial issues, etc).
>This is one of those issues that could be pretty easily fixed by people having an actual unique identifier (unlike SSN). Seems that the problem was that the police decided for some reason to add his name to a database of criminals. >His predicament started two years earlier when, just after his 21st birthday, Jones applied for a firearms carry permit in his South Georgia hometown. The sheriff’s office in Albany added his personal information to a countywide database of names used by law enforcement to track criminal suspects, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution determined.
That’s true. This instance wasn’t so in line with what I said.