[Paco500]

There seem to be quite a few self-proclaimed libertarians (or at least members with libertarian leanings) on this board, and I've got some questions.

Let me state before hand that I think a lot of the libertarian noise we have been hearing lately is a matter of republicans/conservatives being disenchanted with the direction of their party more than an actual desire to see Bob Barr put into office (one wonders, is "republican" becoming the new "liberal"? A smear?). My read is that is a way of saying we think Bush sucks too without having to support the democrats. But I may be wrong.

What I'm wondering is, and I'm serious about this- no hidden agenda, are there examples of functioning libertarian governments/societies either in existence or historically? My gut tells me no- I think it's an unworkable model, much like communism. A utopian ideal that will always fail upon implementation without a major break from dogma. I certainly don't think libertarianism could succeed in the US. We have built up too much of an underclass that would likely suffer to the point of revolution. But the US is not the only society in the world. Could it succeed elsewhere? Has it already? Thoughts?

[Big Mac]

Many libertarians are pragmatic, while others are much more doctrinaire. The former camp accepts that government has a proper, limited role to play in the world. They (assuming we're talking about American libertarians) argue for Constitutional government, namely government similar to what we had before the 16th Amendment and certainly before the New Deal. Doctrinaire libertarians insist on constraining government to absolute bare minimums and in ways that go beyond the limited role mandated by the Constitution, and those libertarians border on anarchists. That's my view after being friends for years with many people in the Libertarian Party and attending Libertarian Party conventions.

[Doofy]

My thoughts are that most cultures have been libertarian at one point. The main deciding factor in this is whether you can divorce yourself from your government - and in ancient times, this was reasonably easy since all you had to do was leave the tribe and go build a home elsewhere.

The US was reasonably libertarian until some prat invented the IRS - one could do a "Gizzly Adams" pretty easily.

Libertarianism as a society can probably not succeed in the modern world - too many people want nannying. The best we can hope for is that libertarianism is a movement acting as one of those "checks and balances" which a government has to take notice of.

Edit: In response to Big Mac. I'm a pragmatic minarchist. We need some government.

[Big Mac]

We could very easily reverse the erosion of liberty in America if the people relearn to detest big government. The founders declared independence over no more than a 3% income tax. Now we're poised to elect a man who wants to confiscate and redistribute wealth at levels unheard of in a generation. Perhaps Americans will one day snap out of it and reclaim their limited government heritage.

[Paco500]

So is pure libertarianism synonymous with anarchy? Is the libertarian ideal one of complete self-interest so therefore necessarily outside of society- making libertarian-society an oxymoron?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We could very easily reverse the erosion of liberty in America if the people relearn to detest big government. The founders declared independence over no more than a 3% income tax. Now we're poised to elect a man who wants to confiscate and redistribute wealth at levels unheard of in a generation. Perhaps Americans will one day snap out of it and reclaim their limited government heritage.

It may be asking too much, but I was hoping this would not devolve into a discussion of the current election. There are plenty of other threads for that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So is pure libertarianism synonymous with anarchy? Is the libertarian ideal one of complete self-interest so therefore necessarily outside of society- making libertarian-society an oxymoron?

No. Anarchy implies no rules at all. Libertarianism (or, at least, a libertarian society) requires contract law and some entity to enforce it.

[goMac]

(Note, I'm not a libertarian, just expressing myself, man)

My impression of libertarianism is that it would would in rural areas. In urban areas it would not work so much, and would actually result in a loss of freedom. Systems like public roads, public parks, public libraries, and so forth, result in more freedom for those who would be unable to afford such services. Libertarianism (imho) would suggest that those services should be paid for only by people who use them, but this results in a loss of freedom for those who can't afford to use them, and thus brings forth discrimination...

An even more interesting analysis is if, say, roads were privately owned. It would add a barrier to transporting people and services, and the road owner would be free to discriminate. To add insult to injury, those who would like to build their own road because they are not allowed to use the existing road could be blocked from transporting materials in to build a new road. This is why I don't feel Libertarianism works in an urban setting. While in a rural setting it could add to peoples freedoms, in an urban setting it would mostly curtail them. And I think if you open the pandoras box of a local government providing certain services, it will eventually spiral back into a federal government providing certain services, and more services, until we are back at where we are now. I have a feeling most governments started as libertarian, and then evolved into what they are today to meet the needs of the people.

Again, not a libertarian, just saying what I think of the movement.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Anarchy implies no rules at all. Libertarianism (or, at least, a libertarian society) requires contract law and some entity to enforce it.

IOW, anarchists with credit cards.

[olePigeon]

The problem I see with Libertarianism is that it quickly becomes a Jim Crow society. "Only the people who use something should pay for it." With an interstate system of roads, it is very expensive to upkeep just from erosion and ware related to weather. It would become prohibitively expensive to maintain the interstate system if everyone didn't contribute to its upkeep through federal and state taxes. As the cost to use the road goes up, only people making X amount of money will be able to afford to travel on it.

An extreme class system would develop whereby only the wealthy can afford "luxuries" such as paved roads, health care, education, etc.; many things that we take for granted through taxation.

[Big Mac]

The problem I see with Libertarianism is that it quickly becomes a Jim Crow society. "Only the people who use something should pay for it." With an interstate system of roads, it is very expensive to upkeep just from erosion and ware related to weather. It would become prohibitively expensive to maintain the interstate system if everyone didn't contribute to its upkeep through federal and state taxes. As the cost to use the road goes up, only people making X amount of money will be able to afford to travel on it.

That's why I draw the distinction between pragmatic or moderate libertarianism and extreme libertarianism. Many libertarians accept that government has a role in providing access to common services like first responders and transportation infrastructure. To stereotype all libertarians as being the extreme/doctrinaire variety is inaccurate.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's why I draw the distinction between pragmatic or moderate libertarianism and extreme libertarianism. Many libertarians accept that government has a role in providing access to common services like first responders and transportation infrastructure. To stereotype all libertarians as being the extreme/doctrinaire variety is inaccurate.

But I guess that's the problem. If you have a party that condones essential spending, then essentially you're just left with a party that's anti pork barrel.

Essential spending is so undefined. Some people would argue that medical care is an essential service. Would they be Libertarian? I guess the problem is, as a Democrat, I feel that the government is obligated to provide many different services to ensure our liberty and freedom. Yet I probably wouldn't be considered a Libertarian for being for government provided health care, government subsidized technology, and business regulation.

At the same time, most our Republican friends fight for services they consider essential to our well being, that they consider require a federal role, but they wouldn't be libertarian either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Essential spending is so undefined.

On the contrary

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

On the contrary

Now, don't bring the Constitution into it.

Most of the Libertarians I have talked to don't have an issues with state or county/parish/borough providing health care education etc. They don't want the federal government doing anything that is not granted in Article one, Section eight.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't know where this put's him on the Libertarian scale, Neil Boortz's philosophy is he always defaults to freedom.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

On the contrary

Sure, but I don't think any of the political parties are anti-constitution. It's kind of a red herring. That said, certain people in certain offices have acted with disregard to the constitution. I don't think that's a general view of the Democrats at least, it's certainly not an ideal established in the party, and certain legislation already in effect complicates this.

I think there is also a certain perception from the Libertarians that just because the Constitution grants someone a power, that must mean they must exercise that power. For example, the constitution grants Congress the power to impeach the President. That does not mean Congress has to impeach the President. George Bush's administration is probably guilty of several major crimes. That said, Congress is not obligated to act. Sure, it would be good if they would act, but if they decide that prosecuting the Bush administration is not good for this country, that is their prerogative. I think if they were hearing from their constituents that impeachment was what the country wanted, they would be headed down that path.

And I don't think all Libertarians are like that, but there are very noisy groups of Libertarians out there who believe that sort of stuff...

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Sure, but I don't think any of the political parties are anti-constitution.

I find both parties to be anti-constitution in the sense they cherry pick the parts they like and sweep the rest under the rug.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego 

I find both parties to be anti-constitution in the sense they cherry pick the parts they like and sweep the rest under the rug.

a) That depends entirely on your interpretation of the constitution. Taxation is what comes to mind. People will insist that income tax is unconstitutional, when it's not.
b) Yeah, certain people have been flexible with the constitution. That doesn't mean it's party policy. I consider myself a Democrat and I'm against telecom immunity, against suspension of habeas corpus, etc. But I realize it's not going to be easy to undo the damage done over the past few years. I don't believe people like Obama don't respect the constitution. I just think they realize there are going to be certain priorities in cleaning up the damage done by the Bush administration, and stuff like prosecuting telephone companies is honestly the least of our worries. I really don't think Obama is going to come in and ignore the constitution, I think he's going to have to be a realist about what needs to be accomplished. This is in contrast to it's-just-a-piece-of-paper Bush.

[Doofy]

All of your politicians are flexible with the constitution. I mean, which part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" fits in with "assault weapon" bans?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Many libertarians are pragmatic, while others are much more doctrinaire. The former camp accepts that government has a proper, limited role to play in the world. They (assuming we're talking about American libertarians) argue for Constitutional government, namely government similar to what we had before the 16th Amendment and certainly before the New Deal. Doctrinaire libertarians insist on constraining government to absolute bare minimums and in ways that go beyond the limited role mandated by the Constitution, and those libertarians border on anarchists. That's my view after being friends for years with many people in the Libertarian Party and attending Libertarian Party conventions.

This mirrors my views as well.

I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. The interesting debate is how one should straddle the line between what amount of government interference is reasonable, and what should be avoided. I see many conservatives who would like to call themselves libertarian while only defending the liberties they themselves feel should be protected while infringing on others they don't agree with.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac 

That doesn't mean it's party policy.

As Doofy pointed out, it is absolutely Democratic party policy when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, and as Chongo implied, the 10th.

Likewise, taking issue with the 1st and the 4th Amendments is a time-honored Republican tradition.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All of your politicians are flexible with the constitution. I mean, which part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" fits in with "assault weapon" bans?

That would be the part about a "well regulated militia" that precedes it but is often ignored.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

That would be the part about a "well regulated militia" that precedes it but is often ignored.

Gee. I can make a declarative statement without anything to back it up too.

We're not ignoring it, you're parsing the sentence wrong.



Something tells me this isn't going to get us anywhere, so why don't you try putting forth some evidence.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

That would be the part about a "well regulated militia" that precedes it but is often ignored.

...A well regulated militia being made up of normal everyday folks who bring their own pitchforks/AK47s to the party. The militia is there to make sure the government doesn't get too shirty, and as such cannot rely on access to a government-controlled cache of weapons when the time comes... ...and also, must be able to muster weapons which will give a fair fight against whatever weaponry the government is equipped with.

That's the entire point of the amendment - to keep government in check, by use of force if necessary. Of course, government of all stripes doesn't really like that idea.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by subego 

Gee. I can make a declarative statement without anything to back it up too.

We're not ignoring it, you're parsing the sentence wrong.



Something tells me this isn't going to get us anywhere, so why don't you try putting forth some evidence.

All I intended, and all I did was answer the question. The question was about the connection between the language in the 2nd Amendment and regulation of certain weapons. Is the word 'regulated' in the 2nd Amendment not evidence in that context?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...A well regulated militia being made up of normal everyday folks who bring their own pitchforks/AK47s to the party. The militia is there to make sure the government doesn't get too shirty, and as such cannot rely on access to a government-controlled cache of weapons when the time comes... ...and also, must be able to muster weapons which will give a fair fight against whatever weaponry the government is equipped with.

That's the entire point of the amendment - to keep government in check, by use of force if necessary. Of course, government of all stripes doesn't really like that idea.

Talk to me when I can put a nuclear warhead in my backyard. Somehow I don't think an AK-47 would quite cut it against the government's current stockpile of weaponry. I agree with you in concept, but IMHO the growth in capabilities of weaponry has rendered that concept rather irrelevant.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Talk to me when I can put a nuclear warhead in my backyard. Somehow I don't think an AK-47 would quite cut it against the government's current stockpile of weaponry. I agree with you in concept, but IMHO the growth in capabilities of weaponry has rendered that concept rather irrelevant.

The government is not going to use nukes on its own citizens.

If you believe the concept to be irrelevant, then by default you believe the constitution to be irrelevant. At which point your careers advisor might point you at a lucrative stint in DC.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The government is not going to use nukes on its own citizens.

If you believe the concept to be irrelevant, then by default you believe the constitution to be irrelevant. At which point your careers advisor might point you at a lucrative stint in DC.

If the government isn't going to use its weapons against its citizens, what's the need for a militia then?

Your second statement uses an invalid leap in logic. The concept of the citizenry not having the same weaponry as the government has no relationship to the relevance of the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about everyone having equal weapons...

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All of your politicians are flexible with the constitution. I mean, which part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" fits in with "assault weapon" bans?

[OFF TOPIC]Do you really think the founding fathers envisioned "arms" would include weapons that could fire 60 rounds a second? Hell, they didn't envision arms that you didn't have to reload after every shot. Does "arms" include my right to have a nuclear weapon? If not, why not? And if arms doesn't include my right to have a nuclear weapon, where do you draw the line?[/OFF TOPIC]

The problem is that people fail to understand that our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Times have changed. The pragmatism that worked then simply won't work in this day and age.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

All I intended, and all I did was answer the question. The question was about the connection between the language in the 2nd Amendment and regulation of certain weapons. Is the word 'regulated' in the 2nd Amendment not evidence in that context?

No. The term had multiple meanings in use at the time. In the context of the Amendment it means with "good order and discipline", not "to adjust by rule".

This fact isn't quite the slam-dunk many gun right advocates would lead you to believe, but it likewise isn't particularly definitive in the other direction either.

Which leaves us with parsing the sentence, and the little issue that every single other Amendment in the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. The term had multiple meanings in use at the time. In the context of the Amendment it means with "good order and discipline", not "to adjust by rule".

This fact isn't quite the slam-dunk many gun right advocates would lead you to believe, but it likewise isn't particularly definitive in the other direction either.

Which leaves us with parsing the sentence, and the little issue that every single other Amendment in the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government.

Either interpretation has facets of restriction of the federal government.

Oh, and actually - yes, in the original post I quoted, Doofy did ignore that part of the amendment.

You are absolutely correct that the statement has multiple interpretations. That's the point - and that's what connects it to regulations of weapons deemed unnecessary for militia. Which also is subject to interpretation. And around we go...

[subego]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Either interpretation has facets of restriction of the federal government.

Give me an example (make one up if you have to) of a law that would be considered unconstitutional by your interpretation.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Oh, and actually - yes, in the original post I quoted, Doofy did ignore that part of the amendment.

You know this because you're a mind reader or something? The basic gun advocacy argument is that the RTBA is required to have a well regulated militia, not the other way around. This is not ignoring that part of the sentence, it is arguing it is irrelevant to the RTBA.

If you disagree with that, then disagree with that. I think we can all do without the baseless accusations of impropriety.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You are absolutely correct that the statement has multiple interpretations.

Gee. If I were the type to pass judgment, I might say you ignored that part when you stated that the existence of the term "regulate" in the sentence was all the evidence you needed. Luckily, that's not how I roll.

Regardless, I'm not arguing the statement has multiple interpretations, I argued the phrase does. In this context the statement has a single interpretation: that of with "good order and discipline".

Originally Posted by George Washington

The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by subego 

Give me an example (make one up if you have to) of a law that would be considered unconstitutional by your interpretation.

A law prohibiting a militia from forming using Revolutionary War muskets.

You know this because you're a mind reader or something? The basic gun advocacy argument is that the RTBA is required to have a well regulated militia, not the other way around. This is not ignoring that part of the sentence, it is arguing it is irrelevant to the RTBA.

If you disagree with that, then disagree with that. I think we can all do without the baseless accusations of impropriety.

No. I know this because he posted the second half of the amendment, not the first, when the first half was in fact relevant to his question. Where in his post is the first part of the statement noted?

I just read his post. I didn't need to or want to infer anything about him.

Gee. If I were the type to pass judgment, I might say you ignored that part when you stated that the existence of the term "regulate" in the sentence was all the evidence you needed. Luckily, that's not how I roll.

Regardless, I'm not arguing the statement has multiple interpretations, I argued the phrase does. In this context the statement has a single interpretation: that of with "good order and discipline".

You missed my point then. My original point was that the statement taken as a whole has multiple valid interpretations, and Doofy's notable omission inferred only one. I only started parsing it when pressed.

By the way, I also have trouble connecting "Everyone is free to have any gun they want" to a militia with "good order and discipline". So choose any reasonable definition you want, it makes little difference when put into context of the entire statement.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

A law prohibiting a militia from forming using Revolutionary War muskets.

Why?

You said "[t]he question was about the connection between the language in the 2nd Amendment and regulation of certain weapons. Is the word 'regulated' in the 2nd Amendment not evidence in that context?"

Either "regulated" allows Congress to regulate the weapons the militia can use, or it doesn't. Right?

What am I missing?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I know this because he posted the second half of the amendment

I shouldn't be arguing for Doof when he's right here. Withdrawn, and my apologies to both of you.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

By the way, I also have trouble connecting "Everyone is free to have any gun they want" to a militia with "good order and discipline". So choose any reasonable definition you want, it makes little difference when put into context of the entire statement.

Everyone is free to have any gun they want makes the assumption the individual states don't have a say in the matter. The founding fathers most certainly weren't making that assumption.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Oh, and actually - yes, in the original post I quoted, Doofy did ignore that part of the amendment.

No I didn't. I simply didn't include it because my point was about "shall not be infringed".

[Big Mac]

Wait, are you guys still arguing about Second Amendment and claiming it's not an individual right? You guys finally got slapped down by the SCOTUS. It's time give up and move on to misinterpreting another part of the Constitution.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No I didn't. I simply didn't include it because my point was about "shall not be infringed".

And then you asked how that could justify regulating assault weapons. I was simply pointing out that the first part of the amendment is relevant to your question.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wait, are you guys still arguing about Second Amendment and claiming it's not an individual right? You guys finally got slapped down by the SCOTUS. It's time give up and move on to misinterpreting another part of the Constitution.

Ah - you're right - you interpret the Constitution the 'correct' way while everyone else is bollocks. So, please link me to a site where I can legally purchase a nuclear warhead. Heck, maybe I'd settle for some Agent Orange. After all, it's my individual right.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

And then you asked how that could justify regulating assault weapons. I was simply pointing out that the first part of the amendment is relevant to your question.

I was simply pointing out the words "shall not be infringed". In case you're particularly bad at English, that means no law shall be made restricting people from owning any type of weapons they want to. To make any such law would be an infringement.

Those of you who want to talk about the first part should go look the word "militia" up in a dictionary before doing so.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Ah - you're right - you interpret the Constitution the 'correct' way while everyone else is bollocks. So, please link me to a site where I can legally purchase a nuclear warhead.

Man, you're just not getting it.

The fact is, your constitution gives you the right to purchase said warhead (if you've got the cash, which you haven't). The fact that you can't means your constitution is worthless because nobody is following it.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I was simply pointing out the words "shall not be infringed". In case you're particularly bad at English, that means no law shall be made restricting people from owning any type of weapons they want to. To make any such law would be an infringement.

Those of you who want to talk about the first part should go look the word "militia" up in a dictionary before doing so.

Apparently I'm bad at English because I don't make leaps in logic. The fist part of the sentence is a qualifier on the second. It's a valid interpretation to say the statement taken as a whole doesn't mean 'You can own as many Uzis as you want', but rather 'An organized militia that demonstrates good order and discipline can have Uzis, and you can work with them if they'll accept you'. Which is pretty much what we have. Want to play with assault weapons? Join a SWAT team or your state's National Guard, if they'll have you. Seems reasonable to me.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Man, you're just not getting it.

No, I get it just fine. You say tom-ay-to. I say tom-ah-to. Both are valid, and depending on which way the wind blows at a given time, one will be more accepted than the other.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Apparently I'm bad at English because I don't make leaps in logic. The fist part of the sentence is a qualifier on the second. It's a valid interpretation to say the statement taken as a whole doesn't mean 'You can own as many Uzis as you want', but rather 'An organized militia that demonstrates good order and discipline can have Uzis, and you can work with them if they'll accept you'. Which is pretty much what we have. Want to play with assault weapons? Join a SWAT team or your state's National Guard, if they'll have you. Seems reasonable to me.

A militia is not the national or state guard. A militia is a bunch of farmers who bring their own weapons to the fray to beat a common enemy (whether this be foreign invasion or their own government). You cannot have a militia if the government is responsible for keeping the weapons until they're needed - if this were the case they'd be "reserves", not militia.

There's no leap in logic required - only an understanding of the words involved.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A militia is not the national or state guard. A militia is a bunch of farmers who bring their own weapons to the fray to beat a common enemy (whether this be foreign invasion or their own government). You cannot have a militia if the government is responsible for keeping the weapons until they're needed - if this were the case they'd be "reserves", not militia.

There's no leap in logic required - only an understanding of the words involved.

Yes - I know what militia means. What makes that bunch of farmers 'well regulated'? We have seen the concept manifest itself in the form of state guards. I didn't say the government keeps the weapons - I said the militia organization (it's well regulated, right?) keeps them. The militia organization is then accountable to demonstrate it can handle them responsibly.

It's pretty simple really. As the destructive capability of weapons goes up, so does the need for 'good order and discipline' in keeping and bearing them. There's a lot more accountability needed in handling WMDs than there is in a hunting rifle, and restrictions that put that accountability in place are reasonable.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes - I know what militia means. What makes that bunch of farmers 'well regulated'?

You don't understand what the well-regulated militia meant in 18th Century English. Well regulated does not mean regulated by government, and the militia does not refer to the National Guard. If you look at the definition of militia that was in use at that time, you'll see that the militia was all able-bodied citizens. You also don't understand that the first clause of the amendment is of an informational and introductory, non-limiting nature. Thankfully, the SCOTUS does understand these things, and theirs is the only opinion that counts legally speaking.

[vmarks]

well-regulated means, the firearms are in good working condition.
It doesn't refer to laws or rules at all.

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.

Because a group of individual citizens have to be able to band together to defend themselves and the nation (well-regulated (in working order) militia), no laws can be made that will limit individuals from keeping and bearing firearms.

This is the correct reading, and always has been. It just took the Supreme Court a little while to get around to confirming it to be so. (Heller, 2008.)

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's why I draw the distinction between pragmatic or moderate libertarianism and extreme libertarianism. Many libertarians accept that government has a role in providing access to common services like first responders and transportation infrastructure. To stereotype all libertarians as being the extreme/doctrinaire variety is inaccurate.

Government has to pay for services that cannot be profitable in the private sector, or that would cause harm to the health of the country if not made available to everyone. Examples include:

1) infrastructure -- roads are the obvious example, but there are others
2) defense -- the government has to provide defense, especially in the case of a republic of states
3) education -- this one causes controversy, but you can't have only wealthy people getting education
4) legal system -- nothing else matters without a legal system

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Heck, maybe I'd settle for some Agent Orange. After all, it's my individual right.

Why, do you have some deforestation to do? You do realize that agent orange is a defoliant that was used to strip jungles along with agent blue and agent white? There were a few others, I remember pink and green but I believe only orange, blue and white were deployed. Of the three agent orange produced adverse health effects because it contained dioxins (If I remember correctly, I'm no expert in doctorology). It is a herbicide, not a weapon, and it was never used as one (well, except against plants).

On topic, I would characterize myself as leaning towards the pragmatic Libertarian these days. I have become completely disenfranchised by both the Republican and Democratic parties. It's become clear to me that the loyalties of these parties is to the party itself, and not to those they claim to represent. I stayed a registered Republican just long enough to vote in the last primary, then promptly change my registration to independent. I thought about registering as Libertarian, but that didn't quite fit the bill either.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You don't understand what the well-regulated militia meant in 18th Century English. Well regulated does not mean regulated by government, and the militia does not refer to the National Guard. If you look at the definition of militia that was in use at that time, you'll see that the militia was all able-bodied citizens. You also don't understand that the first clause of the amendment is of an informational and introductory, non-limiting nature. Thankfully, the SCOTUS does understand these things, and theirs is the only opinion that counts legally speaking.

Your opinion is noted. It should also be noted that the opinion of the SCOTUS changes over time. Obviously it has, and it probably will again.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

well-regulated means, the firearms are in good working condition.
It doesn't refer to laws or rules at all.

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.

Because a group of individual citizens have to be able to band together to defend themselves and the nation (well-regulated (in working order) militia), no laws can be made that will limit individuals from keeping and bearing firearms.

This is the correct reading, and always has been. It just took the Supreme Court a little while to get around to confirming it to be so. (Heller, 2008.)

Your opinion is also noted.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Your opinion is noted. It should also be noted that the opinion of the SCOTUS changes over time. Obviously it has, and it probably will again.

The Court's opinion didn't change. In real terms the Court ruled for the very first time on the substance of the amendment this year, and it ruled correctly.