What's new
By:

Child firing Uzi at Ariz. shooting range accidentally kills instructor

The Thriller said:
I'm pretty sure I've explained it in a post above.

The number of self proclaimed libertarians who still demand that marriage is (only) between a man and a woman, weed should still be illegal, and call for US intervention at every foreign runny nose is mind blogging. There's a severe disconnect between "Libertarianism" and what its "followers" actually practice.

Hence, selective libertarianism.
Click to expand...

Well, it does confuse things when Tea Party members claim to be libertarian when they themselves have no clue what that means. They seem to think that it means lower taxes and the ability to own guns. I think some of them even think it has something to do with "state's rights" which is pretty baffling.

But that aside, libertarianism is an ideology. No ideology in the history of mankind has been perfectly instituted, practiced or even really agreed upon by more than three people. I've always said in regard to libertarianism, you can't get there from here. Meaning, it's not about electing a couple Libertarian party members and next thing you know we're living in a Utopian paradise. Libertarianism is not a patriotic position, in my mind. It would require the complete dissolution of the U.S. government. And honestly, at the present time, it's not worth giving up what we have to establish an ideological experiment in libertarianism.

I think the very worst thing that could happen to libertarian concepts is that some yahoo (or group of yahoos) calling his or her self a libertarian gets elected and starts implementing libertarian policies piecemeal. It would be doomed to failure and libertarian concepts would be laughed out of existence from that point forward.
 
@Thriller

Don't use Dutch as your example for any group. You lose any point you may have had lol.

Also your argument against libertarianism seems to be that they want more personal choice than you but not absolute so they must be wrong.

Or

That since all "libertarians" do not agree exactly that the ideology is faulty? Well then I guess liberalism and conservatism (and all other ideologies) are wrong since all their followers do not exactly agree on every issue.

Sorry Thriller but those are both extremely poor arguments.
 
Gameface said:
Well, it does confuse things when Tea Party members claim to be libertarian when they themselves have no clue what that means. They seem to think that it means lower taxes and the ability to own guns. I think some of them even think it has something to do with "state's rights" which is pretty baffling.

But that aside, libertarianism is an ideology. No ideology in the history of mankind has been perfectly instituted, practiced or even really agreed upon by more than three people. I've always said in regard to libertarianism, you can't get there from here. Meaning, it's not about electing a couple Libertarian party members and next thing you know we're living in a Utopian paradise. Libertarianism is not a patriotic position, in my mind. It would require the complete dissolution of the U.S. government. And honestly, at the present time, it's not worth giving up what we have to establish an ideological experiment in libertarianism.

I think the very worst thing that could happen to libertarian concepts is that some yahoo (or group of yahoos) calling his or her self a libertarian gets elected and starts implementing libertarian policies piecemeal. It would be doomed to failure and libertarian concepts would be laughed out of existence from that point forward.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of these pts. Good post.

When did you come back?
 
Stoked said:
@Thriller

Don't use Dutch as your example for any group. You lose any point you may have had lol.

Also your argument against libertarianism seems to be that they want more personal choice than you but not absolute so they must be wrong.

Or

That since all "libertarians" do not agree exactly that the ideology is faulty? Well then I guess liberalism and conservatism (and all other ideologies) are wrong since all their followers do not exactly agree on every issue.

Sorry Thriller but those are both extremely poor arguments.
Click to expand...

Lol you're right. What was I thinking using Dutch as my example? Will rep when I can.

I don't believe in absolute adherence to one party's dogma. But so many self proclaimed libertarians don't actually believe in choice. Again, how many libertarians complain about government regulations and taxes while demanding government intervention in the me, marijuana, and complain about gay marriage? Those are 3 hot topics that I see libertarians whiff on. And they're huge.
 
Gameface said:
Well, it does confuse things when Tea Party members claim to be libertarian when they themselves have no clue what that means. They seem to think that it means lower taxes and the ability to own guns. I think some of them even think it has something to do with "state's rights" which is pretty baffling.

But that aside, libertarianism is an ideology. No ideology in the history of mankind has been perfectly instituted, practiced or even really agreed upon by more than three people. I've always said in regard to libertarianism, you can't get there from here. Meaning, it's not about electing a couple Libertarian party members and next thing you know we're living in a Utopian paradise. Libertarianism is not a patriotic position, in my mind. It would require the complete dissolution of the U.S. government. And honestly, at the present time, it's not worth giving up what we have to establish an ideological experiment in libertarianism.

I think the very worst thing that could happen to libertarian concepts is that some yahoo (or group of yahoos) calling his or her self a libertarian gets elected and starts implementing libertarian policies piecemeal. It would be doomed to failure and libertarian concepts would be laughed out of existence from that point forward.
Click to expand...

The very same thing could be and was said of democracy. When people speak about democracy there are not necessarily speaking about actual democracy where any yahoo gets to vote on every aspect of someones life.

Libertarianism is just a set of guiding principles that one tries his/her best to apply when making decisions about an issue. Everyone on some level will have to be pragmatic as well. I don't think it is fair to label libertarians by the numbskulls that are out there. It is just like labeling all Republicans by the worst in the tea party or labeling Democrats by the the furthest left of the 99%ers.

Link to Libertarian parties official positions on a number of issues.

https://www.lp.org/issues
 
heyhey said:
The very same thing could be and was said of democracy. When people speak about democracy there are not necessarily speaking about actual democracy where any yahoo gets to vote on every aspect of someones life.

Libertarianism is just a set of guiding principles that one tries his/her best to apply when making decisions about an issue. Everyone on some level will have to be pragmatic as well. I don't think it is fair to label libertarians by the numbskulls that are out there. It is just like labeling all Republicans by the worst in the tea party or labeling Democrats by the the furthest left of the 99%ers.

Link to Libertarian parties official positions on a number of issues.

https://www.lp.org/issues
Click to expand...


I just want to clarify. I consider myself a libertarian. But I am not a member of the Libertarian party and it would take some serious convincing to get me to vote for a libertarian candidate.

The biggest thing that bugs me about the majority of libertarian viewpoints I've encountered is that the interests of large business and industry are as important or even more important than true individual liberty. My view of true libertarianism would create so much liability on the part of business and industry that as we know them today they would go bankrupt because they would be forced to compensate every individual that they harmed without consent. I am essentially an anti-business libertarian. So if my view were to be adopted American prosperity based on its current model would be a thing of the past.
 
Gameface said:
I just want to clarify. I consider myself a libertarian. But I am not a member of the Libertarian party and it would take some serious convincing to get me to vote for a libertarian candidate.

The biggest thing that bugs me about the majority of libertarian viewpoints I've encountered is that the interests of large business and industry are as important or even more important than true individual liberty. My view of true libertarianism would create so much liability on the part of business and industry that as we know them today they would go bankrupt because they would be forced to compensate every individual that they harmed without consent. I am essentially an anti-business libertarian. So if my view were to be adopted American prosperity based on its current model would be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I hear ya.

I actually carry the same reservations about the Libertarian party but the way I see it both of the other parties also pander to the interests of big business. They provide special tax considerations, no bid government contracts, writing their own anti competitive regulations, and investment through political connection. The idea that libertarians would at least make them stand on their own two feet on a level playing field is preferable to me over the current state of affairs.

The main reason I vote libertarian is social/federal power issues. It is things like Obama and the Dems(when they shortly controlled congress) failure to end the patriot act, push for gay marriage, reduce our prison population, reign in executive power or any real attempt to do so that really bothers me.

Republicans generally take the position of a complete douche bag on most issues. Other than gun control I can't think of anything off the top of my head where I share a significant amount of agreement with the GOP.

A libertarian won't be elected but I can vote my conscience to greater degree with the LP then I can for either of the other 2.
 
moevillini said:
my agenda?
and where did I ever say anything about safety?

do tell...

I'm all ears (or eyes, I suppose since I'm reading this).

Take your best shot.
Click to expand...

heyhey said:
I'm afraid I am at a disadvantage. I must have misinterpreted you somewhere along the line or made an improper assumption. I was under the impression that your concern here had more to do with safety than anything else.




If you wish to clarify what the basis for your objection to this activity is then I will accept it without a second thought.

It is not my intention to take a shot at you and I do not think you exclusively have an agenda. We all do. Libertarians certainly do but you accused that agenda of being inconsistent and I disagree with that assertion.
Click to expand...

My statement was based on statements by others early in this thread about taking children as young as 5 to a firing range (or maybe even younger, but 5 is the youngest age I recall seeing in this thread) and teaching them about gun safety - - and the idea that a place like this, which is designed primarily for entertainment purposes, does not seem like a suitable place to take a child if your primary focus is on teaching gun safety.

Perhaps I am totally wrong, but I would think the first message you'd teach your children is that guns are dangerous; that they are not toys and should never be treated in that way - yet in looking at the website for this particular firing range, their marketing seems to be aimed in the opposite direction.

Obviously they are going to promote safe handling of firearms (they'd risk "killing" their business if they didn't) but that is not their primary focus. And also, obviously, whatever they are doing to mitigate risk didn't quite work in this instance.
 
I was probably 7 or 8 the first time my father took me out shooting. I was snooping in a storage closet and found a scope. I was messing around with it in the backyard and didn't realize he was on the roof fixing the swamp cooler. When he saw what I was messing with he told me he'd take me shooting. It was a bolt action .22 cal rifle from about 1930 or something (probably not quite that old, but he got it used when he was pretty young). He didn't put the scope on it, we used the iron sights. We had to go way out west of SLC, like past Redwood rd. to find a place to shoot it.

Learning to shoot from my father was all about hitting small targets at long distances. Never popping off rounds. He was patient but only so long as I was learning how to aim and trying to hit the target, which in that instance was the 1x2" cardboard box the bullets came in.
 
Gameface said:
I was probably 7 or 8 the first time my father took me out shooting. I was snooping in a storage closet and found a scope. I was messing around with it in the backyard and didn't realize he was on the roof fixing the swamp cooler. When he saw what I was messing with he told me he'd take me shooting. It was a bolt action .22 cal rifle from about 1930 or something (probably not quite that old, but he got it used when he was pretty young). He didn't put the scope on it, we used the iron sights. We had to go way out west of SLC, like past Redwood rd. to find a place to shoot it.

Learning to shoot from my father was all about hitting small targets at long distances. Never popping off rounds. He was patient but only so long as I was learning how to aim and trying to hit the target, which in that instance was the 1x2" cardboard box the bullets came in.
Click to expand...

I like the nostalgia here.
 
moevillini said:
My statement was based on statements by others early in this thread about taking children as young as 5 to a firing range (or maybe even younger, but 5 is the youngest age I recall seeing in this thread) and teaching them about gun safety - - and the idea that a place like this, which is designed primarily for entertainment purposes, does not seem like a suitable place to take a child if your primary focus is on teaching gun safety.

Perhaps I am totally wrong, but I would think the first message you'd teach your children is that guns are dangerous; that they are not toys and should never be treated in that way - yet in looking at the website for this particular firing range, their marketing seems to be aimed in the opposite direction.

Obviously they are going to promote safe handling of firearms (they'd risk "killing" their business if they didn't) but that is not their primary focus. And also, obviously, whatever they are doing to mitigate risk didn't quite work in this instance.
Click to expand...

My son is an infant. My daughter is 8 she has only ever shot a BB gun. She is not comfortable and doesn't want to shoot anything else. I would not put her in over her head. That being said by her age I was comfortable and I was shooting.

I had a large tight knit extended family and most everybody did shoot. Everyone in my family learned to shoot at their own rate. Some shot higher calibers and semi autos before I did and some were later. No one was ever handed a gun that they were not personally ready for and certainly no one ever broke the cardinal rule of standing in front of the shooter. I had a lot of fun learning to shoot and it was entertaining. If it wasn't I probably wouldn't have learned anything.

Does this place need to review its safety policies and training guidelines? Definitely. Should they make sure they are putting safety ahead of entertainment? Yes. Should they stop serving burgers? No. Should they pretend there is no entertainment value? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top