Wednesday, January 02, 2008

A Small "L" Libertarian...

...urges us to consider the "pragmatically libertarian" reasons for putting aside our no compromise RKBA ideology and supporting Bloomberg for President.

Well...start considering.
Posted by David Codrea at 1/02/2008 01:05:00 PM

11 comments:

Ken said...

Breathtaking.

Also, "homina-homina-homina..."

1/02/2008 1:24 PM
InFerroVeritas said...

I posted this in the orginal link but it bears repeating:

chrisgraysoncom said:

"selling cases of machine guns to out of state street-gang members is a bad idea," End quote

I would like you to show me where anyone can buy a case of machine guns. You obviously do not have a clue on what it takes to purchase, own, or possess a machine gun.

Now if when you spoke of a machine gun, you really meant a semi-automatic cosmetically similar replica (also known incorrectly as an "assault weapon" then you are dumber than a bag full of hammers. Supporting Bloomberg just underscores the bag o' hammers comment.

1/02/2008 1:48 PM
Kent McManigal said...

So... "pragmatically" means "anti-".

1/02/2008 2:41 PM
Thirdpower said...

Really Cris. Bloomberg lied. They traced less than 10% of their recovered firearms and , over a period of 10 years, managed to identify about a dozen dealers that averaged 3 or 4 guns/year traced to them out of the thousands that were sold by them. Read up on the usefulness of trace data in regards to that concept.

With that, he conducted illegal stings, initially refused to hand over the evidence to BATFE, and had to go judge shopping to pursue CIVIL (note that, not criminal cases) against them in violation of federal law because there wasn't enough evidence to charge them w/ anything.

That's the kind of person you're supporting for president.

1/02/2008 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...

Next thing you know, he'll be calling himself a pro-gun leader.

1/02/2008 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh my. Calling Bloomberg a libertarian is kind of like saying Adolf Hitler was a Zionist. Even if you "pragmatically" ignore his stance on guns (and the many lies he uses to justify same), we're talking about the guy who banned smoking in public, banned trans-fat, is installing a massive London-style surveillance camera system, and wants to emulate London's "congestion charge" system (which pretty much translates into asking government permission to move about the city and pay a tax on said movement while being tracked), etc..

As for people in cities not liking handguns or whatever. I live in an area populated by roughly two million people and can see skyscrapers from my window. And I happen to like my handguns and eeevil black rifles. If it weren't for the obscene prices resulting from 922(o), I would quite enjoy machine guns as well. By the case or otherwise..

1/02/2008 5:23 PM
closed said...

Stalinist twinkies have discovered that they can cover their deficiencies by claiming to be small "L" libertarians when talking to Conservatives.

Only works well when the conservatives being lied to know nothing about Libertarianism ... or if a real Libertarian fails to show up and bitch-slap the little Stalinist retard.

1/02/2008 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...

Let's fisk your pragmatism.

Your post includes numerous errors of fact. Bloomberg has repeatedly lied about, and distorted the effects of, Federal and NY State gun laws. Most guns recovered in New York DID NOT come from gun dealers outside New York. Most of the remainder came from other New England states. New York was NOT "overrun with hand guns and automatic weapons." The crime rate in New York was at all time lows when Bloomberg took office, mirroring the national trends.

What Bloomberg has tried to stress is that he only wants to enforce the laws that are already on the books. He's not out to create new laws.

Wrong. Bloomberg has repeatedly supported and encouraged numerous new gun laws, not only in New York, but in other states, and at the Federal level. Google has thousands of hits on the subject.

...if the laws on the books are not enforced, this will tempt legislators to write yet more laws limiting guns. So cooperating in enforcing laws that exist will actually limit the creation of new laws...

Wrong, wrong. No amount of "cooperating" stops the creation of new laws that affect gun rights. The gun banners want to ban ALL guns, from antique muskets to modern hunting rifles and all ammunition, from black powder to fixed cartridges. They have said so. They have introduced legislation to that effect all over the US every year for the last four decades.

If advocates of gun ownership stepped up and said, "We don't want our rights to be infringed upon because of the behavior of these bad actors. Let's see to it that these few laws that are on the books are enforced so that some politician doesn't get the bad idea that the solution is to just write some more gun laws."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is EXACTLY what the NRA does. And still, every year, the gun banners try to ban more guns and ammunition. And where does your quantification of our myriad and burdensome gun laws as THESE FEW LAWS come from? Ask any gun dealer or Relic & Curio license holder if he thinks that there are only a "FEW" gun laws!

...gun advocates tend to band together and view the enforcement any gun related law as a threat to their right to bear arms.

Right! Well, that's because they ARE. They are intended to be so by the people who write them, as publicly stated by the people who write them.

For a self-proclaimed pragmatic, you sure do a lot of wishful thinking.

Here's real pragmatism:

Ban alcohol, and billion-dollar cartels spring up to supply alcohol.

Ban drugs, and billion-dollar cartels spring up to supply drugs.

Ban guns, and billion-dollar cartels WILL spring up to supply guns.

Alcohol and drugs can be easily made, cheaply, nearly anywhere.

Guns can be easily and cheaply made by anyone with a high-school education in machine shop.

You still think we can control things with laws?

1/02/2008 8:01 PM
Fletch said...

I'll consider what part of "shall not be infringed" this "small L" doesn't understand.

I'll also consider the source when libertarianism is worth nothing without the ability to fight for libertarian beliefs.

I'll consider Mr. Small L confused, mislead, and simply wrong.

1/02/2008 9:22 PM
Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

"Small 'L' Libertarian," eh? Why can't I stop thinking of him as a "Small 'S' Subject"?

1/02/2008 9:23 PM
Sentenza said...

Bloomberg needs to be drug before a court in irons for some of the things that he's sent his goons to do.

1/03/2008 2:37 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)