[Clubber]

>To what end?

To get some long lost rights back.

>How far do you want to go? P90s? RPGs? Stinger missiles?

Silencers/supressors are currently banned in the US (requires a tax stamp and long waiting period) but legal in other highly restrictive countries like England/UK. They're basically mufflers for guns and not like in the movies. Short barreled rifles would be nice too; we have those now but it's a "technicality," where anyone who owns them for recreational shooting can, on a whim of a bureaucrat, become a felon sentenced to decades of prison. That's not how a free society based on laws should work. Pot falls under the same category. It's still not legal at the federal level and if the DEA decides it wants to start raiding people's homes looking for pot, it certainly can, and people can be prosecuted for it.

>What would the societal benefit be there?

We're a society of individuals, not a society of Borg. Freedoms of the individual are the greatest benefit a society can have.

[nobody9999]

>To get some long lost rights back.

Which specific rights? Don't wax on the pseudo-libertarian bullshit, as you're communicating with an actual libertarian.

Please, do tell.

[Clubber]

>Which specific rights?

Reread what I wrote, I put them in there.

>pseudo-libertarian bullshit

Dunno where this came from, maybe time to tone it down a notch. You sound a little emotional.

[nobody9999]

>You sound a little emotional.

Not emotional. I just don't suffer fools gladly. That'd be you, in case that escapes you.

Toodles!

[Clubber]

It's sad that the extent of your dialog is just name calling. Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you do it, just to make sure you aren't projecting.

It's pretty obvious you are trying to sound intelligent by claiming to be an "actual libertarian," (is there a certification for that by chance? Social or economic?) and using a cliché, but the content of your dialog is pretty thin.

Here's the summary: you asked a question, I answered, you went into a mindless rant and starting name calling. I'll bet you even started to type "LINO" then thought better of it. I don't even know what your position is, your dialog was so thin. Maybe take a deep breath and take time to collect your thoughts. Who's the one suffering fools again?

I'll give you the last word, make it count.

[nobody9999]

>Silencers/supressors are currently banned in the US (requires a tax stamp and long waiting period) but legal in other highly restrictive countries like England/UK. They're basically mufflers for guns and not like in the movies. Short barreled rifles would be nice too; we have those now but it's a "technicality," where anyone who owns them for recreational shooting can, on a whim of a bureaucrat, become a felon sentenced to decades of prison. That's not how a free society based on laws should work. Pot falls under the same category. It's still not legal at the federal level and if the DEA decides it wants to start raiding people's homes looking for pot, it certainly can, and people can be prosecuted for it.

Those aren't rights.

Those are (whether you agree with them or not) laws.

Those are different things.

What you advocate is license (definition 3)[0], not liberty.

Those are wildly different concepts.

>We're a society of individuals, not a society of Borg. Freedoms of the individual are the greatest benefit a society can have.

That we are, but we still all need to live together. Unless, of course you want to move to the middle of the desert or atop a mountain, the rights of others must also be respected.

I'd point out that you never did answer my question: "To what end?"

I'll clarify, since a good faith reading of your response would make me think you didn't understand the question rather than ignoring it in favor of your trained-in prejudices.

What would be served (other than you being able to kill people with impunity) by removing restrictions on, say P90s or RPGs?

If your intent is to have the means (and the desire?) to kill lots of people, then I get your point.

But if you wish to live in a free, peaceful society based on the rule of law (rather than the rule of the gun), I don't see your point at all.

As a (small 'l') libertarian, I note that I can only exercise my liberties freely in a society governed by the rule of law.

Having folks around with the means and will to kill anyone they feel like in large numbers isn't a libertarian principle.

Rather, it's a delusional state fed by this idea that your whole life is only the result of your actions, when 200,000+ years of human existence shows us that liberty comes from collective action to protect those liberties.

Having a bazooka doesn't make you more free. Nor is it a "right" per se.

What gives us liberty is the actual work required to maintain a free society.

"I've got guns, so back off asshole!" isn't a libertarian idea. Rather, it's a backward, "might makes right" authoritarian idea.

If you want to be completely isolated from other humans, go ahead and do whatever you want. But if you're going to live in a society, you need to work with your fellow members of that society to maximize individual rights and liberty.

What you propose does none of those things and are more appropriate to a street gang or mafia. Or is that your desire?

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license