Patrick S Lasswell meets a shotgun armed drug dealer – outside his home; (link fixed)
While running around in my PJ’s armed exclusively with a flashlight, telephone, and civic virtue, my libertarian interest in keeping the police from having military weapons died of exposure. When the the kook drove by and kept pointing his lights at my position, I was all for the 911 operator getting access to laser armed satellites or police helicopters with precision guided munitions. The notion that patrol cars might have AR-15 rifles onboard seemed prudent, not an infringement. All apologies to Glenn Reynolds, but I wouldn’t choose to face deranged shotgun toting citizens armed only with a pistol, why should the cops?
link doesn’t work 🙁
Looks like your link doesn’t work 🙁
Admittedly I haven’t read the guy’s blog in years, but: doesn’t Glenn Reynolds support the Second Ammendment up the wazoo? I can’t imagine him being against cops having cool toys — that’s all Glenn himself seems to live for.
I feel the same way about security cameras as this guy suddenly does about cops with fancy guns. My right to privacy ends at my doorstep. That’s why we call it “going out in public” not “going out in private.” And, at the risk of sounding like my grandma, I’m not doing anything wrong, so why should I care?
I’m always amazed at how many self-described “libertarians” I’ve met are drug users, ex-convicts, or generally “up to something” and desperately afraid of being caught. Your mileage may vary…
Interesting, the libertarians I met (specifically the members of Libertarian party of Canada) are the ‘2nd amendment’ folks. We probably meet different libertarians 🙂
I think of myself as something of a Libertarian. I must have missed the part on under-armed police in my Libertarian indoctrination classes 🙂
I also don’t understand why there would be a libertarian interest in keeping advanced weapons out of the hands of the police.
The link Kate gave is the correct permalink but the website is malfunctioning. You can find the article here:
http://www.moderaterisk.net
Yeah I too am a bit of a Libertarian and have no problem with an armed police force… in fact, as I understand it, about the only purpose the Government would serve in a Libertarian state would be providing a military and police force (the former via federal and the latter via local, with the exception of special police units)… ideally however, the police force wouldn’t have to chase after drug dealers much because, in a true Libertarian state, individuals could use the drugs they wanted (provided they pay for them and didn’t harm others, which, no matter what your excuse is a big no-no and you should pay the penalty) and they’d have their choice of legal providers to choose from… we tried prohibition with alcohol, and all it did was provide $$$ to organized crime… for some reason we can’t see the connection with other drugs today, particularly marijuana which, by objective measures, is less addictive and causes far less deaths per year then alcohol or tobacco… the best people can trot out against marijuana is that it’s a “gateway” drug (a direct function of it being illegal… when was the last time the liquor store clerk tried to top off your order with some cigarettes to make a little extra $$$?) and very weak correlations with schizophrenia (though the psychiatric association in the USA is unanimous in approving it for medicinal purposes)… If you are capable of being a honest and productive member of society while making recreational use of a substance in your leisure time without hurting anyone else, that substance would never be illegal in a libertarian state.
*sigh*
/end rant
P.S. The Fraser Institute published a great research paper in 2004 saying if the federal government legalized and taxed marijuana little would change (including the price and rates of use) except where the money goes…
Paula, you are living in a dreamworld and so is the Fraser Institute. If the feds taxed marijuana one thin dime they’d be back to square one as growops would gladly undercut them. See tobacco.
My question for libertarians is “if marijuana is so harmless, as you claim, then surely it should be OK to sell it to kids, yes? I mean, a twelve year old having a sip of wine is no big deal, and alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, then it should logically follow that there should be no age restriction on the use and purchase of marijuana. Yes?”
Perhaps he’s thinking of libertarian/gun rights arguments that police shouldn’t have weapons ordinary citizens can’t.
Of course, being libertarians or pro-gun people, most who make that argument (which I have great sympathy for, if not total agreement in all areas) want to let ordinary citizens more easily own more guns, rather than disarm the police.
That said, I’m sure there are various paranoid-Libertarians who think the police should be barely armed, as a possible Agent Of Oppression, but there’s nothing in libertarian theory as such that requires or even strongly supports such a position.
So long as the people are also heavily armed if they wish to be, the arms of the night-watchman state that libertarian theory supports (at a minimum) are no great threat to liberty.
Andrew: Note that tobacco smuggling only becomes a serious issue when taxes are high. A dollar an eighth-ounce tax on marijuana (for instance) would be such a low barrier that very few people would be bothered to try and evade it commercially.
(As for the kids issue, that’s one that, as far as I know, the theory hasn’t explored very well, and there are various positions people take, some of which are facially nutty. It is by no means impossible, however, for a libertarian to hold the consistent position that adults may do as they see fit, while children are a different matter.
Or more aptly to your point, the idea that “a sip of wine” isn’t a problem does not entail that “chugging a bottle of vodka” isn’t one, and thus the idea that the former is not a problem does not suggest that marijuana use and sales cannot be restricted at all by age, any more than alcohol.
But, again, the problem of children is one under-analyzed so far.
And non-absolutist libertarians are likely to be fine with making it all legal for adults and leaving restrictions on underage use as being at least a 95% solution to the problem of state interference in liberty. After all, everyone that doesn’t die young eventually turns 18.)
Andrew,
Thank you for your response. Regarding your comment about selling marijuana to kids, such activity would be prohibited on the same grounds that selling tobacco and alcohol is prohibited – the children aren’t really capable of giving informed consent, and thus should be prevented from doing damage to themselves… which brings us back to your bigger point…
…saying that marijuana isn’t as bad as alcohol and tobacco is NOT the same thing as saying it’s full of vitamin “C” and we should put it in the drinking water… it’s simply to say that if drug laws were made on a rational basis (instead of the ad-hoc/propaganda-laced one which is the North American way… go Google “black candle” or try to find what evidence was presented in parliament in 1923 when marijuana was added to the list or banned substances) marijuana would be legal just like alcohol and tobacco. Smoking anything is bad for you, but that doesn’t mean everything you smoke is equally bad…
…but you are entitled to your opinion… i’m gonna stop posting about marijuana in this thread now because Kate frowns on such things (and thus won’t get into a discussion about the taxation of marijuana and price under-cuts etc… except to say you should read the report before you criticize it), and this post is really about Libertarians allegedly not wanting law enforcement officials to have weapons.
Cheers,
Link’s broken….just like the logic on this one…a real Libertarian has no problem with cops having access to the latest hi-tech firepower…as long as citizens do as well…then there is a happy check and balance between the potential police state and the civil society….every one stays real polite 🙂
BTW an AR15 is superceded tachnology…Swissarms make a faster, more accurate and reliable select fire or auto loading rifle/carbine suitable for police work or civilian self defense and targeting.
It’s when I see cops with these useless “stazi” guns like MP5s that I get angry…these high cycle rate 9mm sub guns have no accuracy potental and are ONLY good for spraying into crowds…meant for crowd control…they were designed for prison guards, what are street cops doing with them?….we don’t need police with that type of policy or armed for it either…if thay can spray me with full auto 9mm fire in attempts to “control me” I reserve the right to have the same weapon to defend myself against abuse of that police power.
“Note that tobacco smuggling only becomes a serious issue when taxes are high. ”
Really? Thanks for pointing that out to me, it never would have occurred to me.
A 4% tax on an inelastic good, as your example indicates, is absurd. And then there is the problem of government inspection, marketing budgets, overhead, all pushing up prices while an existing infrastructure is there to undercut.
What about advertising? Do we want our children to see 100,000 ads for Weed Inc. before they reach 18, like they do with beer? Why not, since weed is so harmless?
I don’t think you, or any LOLbertarian for that matter, has thought your brilliant plan through. And I note you were given an opportunity to say you oppose selling weed to kids, and you declined.
The original permalink no longer works, so I’ve redirected it to the main page, which does. Sorry for the confusion.
Paula, you’ve made some good points. My only issue is the difference between flat out legalizing and de-criminalizing. I never want to see crack/heroin sold OTC, that’s what legalized would mean. Nor do I see much point in filling prisons with heroin addicts on often arbitrary trafficking/dealing charges when all addicts deal a little with other addicts to get their daily needs met. I agree with you that marijuana is bogus, it’s a stupid drain on law enforcement which lots of local and state police forces are backing off from.
…”my libertarian interest in keeping the police from having military weapons died of exposure”…
I disagree that libertarians have a problem with a high tech and well armed police force. I think “libertarian” is poorly defined by most people.
Penny,
Thanks! Yeah, over-the-counter crack/coke/heroin sales ain’t a pretty picture… though some argue their potency is a function of criminalization, and we’d see much milder/lower dose products offered if it were legalized… but i’m out of my element here, never having so much as seen the stuff i can’t vouch for faulty claims of causal connections to criminality (or mal-adaptive behavior, which i prefer) the way i can with marijuana.
Now, regarding your skepticism about libertarians and well armed police forces mixing, i just consulted wikipedia (i know, not exactly the definitive source…) and am in agreement with the people here such as WL Mackenzie Redux; libertarians both accept the need for military/police (though they are only to exist to meet force with force, never to initiate) and are (probably) ok with them having fancy weapons — provided average citizens also have access to said weapons… they also hate the welfare state and believe self ownership and private property are of the utmost importance in a free country (go figure).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Now i gotta get back to work (forget drugs, commenting is addictive and ruining my life!).
🙂
Oh, hi, it’s me again, founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta in 1972, Vitruvius. I lasted with the party about two years, because I’m an engineer (by nature, not profession) and we’re not allowed to do ideology. Take any utopianist or distopianist ideology you like, and it will be found to be not pragmatic.
I mention this to complain about the title of this thread. Yes there are no libertarians in foxholes, but that is because there are no ideologists in foxholes. In foxholes there are only intensely focused pragmatists, and useless people overwhelmed by fear.
“I don’t think you, or any LOLbertarian for that matter, has thought your brilliant plan through.”
Yeah it’s been thoight through and peer reviewed by Switzerland for 400 years.
When you tell me that we can’t be trusted with something as innoculous as pot you are telling me i can’t be trusted with a car or a gun or ebevn to look after myself.
When you start making arguments about regulating to control people’s behaviour in personal choices…you get the stench of the nany state all over you…this is what makes me laugh about statits punks who wrap themselves in a conservative banner…same crap as a soviet in a different wrapper.
We see what 13 years of alchol prhibition netted us…organized crime and millionaire crooks…incidently the Kenedy’s and Bronfman fortunes were made rubbing sholders with business men like Al capone….now after 20 years on the “war on drugs” all I see is massive expense…a worse drug problem and an entrenched “establishment” drug financing elite who rub shoulders with PMs, Presidents and Police officials…drug money infects the highest levels of the establishment …and it all depends on keeping use illegal….and arresting the odd kid with a joint or a hippie with a grow op (this removing the independent competition for the cartels)
Personally I don’t think YOU have thought this out very well…or have little idea of the size and scope of illicit drug commerce.
I don’t think that Mr. Lasswell understands what a Libertarian is. Because the prime directive of Libertarians is property rights and the right to defend said property. And that the police should use force in the protection of your property against agression.
I’d venture he is actually a Liberal and not a Libertarian.
My web guy and I apologize about the permalink. It is being looked at as this is written.
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, who was kind enough to link the article, is significantly concerned about the militarization of police armament. Although I mentioned the AR-15 in my post, the problem that Glenn is concerned with is the transfer of large numbers of M-16s to civilian law enforcement after Vietnam. This combined with some very real problems with no-knock warrants caused Prof. Reynolds some concern. When you have automatic weapons, things start to look like automatic weapons targets.
In my specific case, last night I really wanted a rifle when confronted with a shotgun armed crazy person who was stalking my neighborhood. I suspect this was a drug deal gone bad and I really didn’t care a bit about abstract ideals of libertarian society. I am perfectly willing to believe that people get stupid and crazy, regardless of political situation. Not possessing the tools to confront the problem was (and is) my concern.
I moved to a more tactical posture since last night, which means I’ve made it easier for me to protect myself and reviewed likely responses with my wife. This does not mean I’ve gotten on my woodland camouflage and strapped on my 782 gear.
First there is a difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. Just like a Liberal and liberal.
That said I’m all for the legalization of all drugs especially pot. I’d rather 14 year olds smoke pot than drink.
The dislike of high-powered weapons by libertarians stems from the overuse of SWAT raids. See the research of Radley Balko for info on that. Most generally defined libertarians don’t have a problem with with the police being adaquately armed, it’s merely with it’s overuse.
Overall the post title is a cheap shot.
Some people think John Stewart Mill was a libertarian, and he certainly was not, at least by modern standards. He was however one to place human limits on what was and is the best attempt at ideology ever invented, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism strikes to the core of axiology, which in my opinion is the most important sector of philosophy, at least for humans.
But Bentham’s utilitarianism went too far, and Mill drew the line in the sand when he wrote, “Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good.”
This means that guns and drugs are in, but if you screw up your life because of them, don’t come crying to me. And yet, and yet, large quantities of explosives in our neighbours garages, and crack and crystal methamphetamine on our streets, are pragmatically speaking not good ideas.
Also note that Mill’s constraint applies to “human creatures of ripe years”; during the period of their ripening, it is up to us human adults to protect and nuture human children. More so in humans than any other species.
Does that complicate the picture? Of course. If the problem wasn’t complex we wouldn’t be discussing it. All the simple problems were solved long ago.
JS Mill couldn’t conceive of a world as bombarded by mass media as we are. There is no free will in a mass media society.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” – Edward Bernays
Hay Vitruvius…dunno if pragmatism is well recieved in the idealist realms of Libertrians ism but I have become a conservatarian because I couldn’t stand the other worldly utopianism of some Liberatrian leaders.
We gotta live with gummint untill we all transcend this current amoralism which pervades the world…just the same the idea that the less government the better is a long proven pragmatic demand of free society.
I can’t fault people for empowering a governmnet to take care of things we as individuals can’t do…like public works, mail, army police etc…..however it enrages me when people become so partisam that they lose sight of the fact that it is not left or right which is the problem…only uncontrollable government is the problem…..it really ices me when I see people think larger government is the solution to anything…particularly when we have 10,000years of human history to prove that big government is the cause of human suffering, not the cure.
There is no free will in a mass media society.
But, Andrew, isn’t Kate’s blog and the many others in existence the counter-point to that. Even in the USSR years of Pravda and Izvestia, the sheeple understood the falsity.
I think it is safe to say that the reign of the MSM is ending. Nothing could be in more stark contrast today than the influence of “the few”, demoralized and financially floundering, and the rise of the many on the internet.
I wasn’t aware that Kate had comic section in her blog
but this discussion on liberaltarians has shown me the light:-)))))))
“But, Andrew, isn’t Kate’s blog and the many others in existence the counter-point to that. ”
True, but just for one example: part of Harper’s omnibus crime bill is a provision to blood test motorists for weed, which is a fairly big step in ceding power to the state. I’m unaware of any of the 500 or so Canadian political blogs which appears to give a significant crap about this, though virtually all would claim to be libertarian to one degree or another. A hate crimes bill passed in Congress a few weeks ago, no one seemed to notice. See why I dislike LOLbertarians? They’re poseurs, always yammering about rights and stuff while laws get passed left and right under their noses.
Libertarians are utopians.
Hmmm. I am left wanting to find out how it ended.
Libertarians are utopians.
As opposed to what? Every single ideology is utopian. Libertarians just happent to be more consistent than the rest.
If you play your cards right, Woodporter, then with
a little luck, it ends this way: tinyurl.com/ywe3ep
More proof of the old saw about pistols being useful to keep you alive while you go get a real gun.
Mr. Lasswell’s hesitation about arming police with military equipment has a point. The main problem with policemen is that they follow orders. Any orders.
This problem is illustrated in Caledonia, where in the event of a disturbance the OPP continues to line up their riot squads and rifle teams facing the wrong direction. The Liberals giving the orders think the AK47 armed Mohawk Smuggling Society thugs are not the people that need to be seen to.
History teaches us that this is not a good sign.
In a peaceful society with decent law enforcement (like what we USED to have right here in Canaduh), policemen will not find themselves needing things like body armor, night vision, and assault rifles. Issuing such things would be a waste of money.
That the cops DO need this stuff these days (and even here in boring, dumb ass Hamilton Ontario they really, really do) is not a good sign.
And I’m not even a real Libertarian. Barf.
W.L. Mac said: It’s when I see cops with these useless “stazi” guns like MP5s that I get angry.”
W.L., I was able to shoot one of those H&K MP5’s on the range, their accuracy in semi-auto and full auto was very impressive. 25 yard groups of around an inch with a three round burst, all through the same hole one at a time. Much better than a pistol, much less over-penetration potential than a .223 rifle.
They aren’t like the old Sterling where you can’t hit a barn from the inside. I’d have one in a New York minute.
Hey Phantom, Vitruvius here. I think the problem in these cases is the combination of assault weapons and no-knock raids. I couple little old ladies have been killed by the police because of this drug-war excess, and people are starting to take notice. And the authorities relying on questionable criminals supposedly turned state’s evidence has been a part of the problem.
Prof. Reynolds has, if memory serves, suggested that under such circumstances those who authorize such tactics should not benefit from some judicial classes of immunity which they now do. I agree. If you’re going to break down my bedroom door in the middle of the night brandishing a weapon dressed in black wearing a mask, then I as a natural normal human am going to dump about an ounce of adrenalin into my bloodstream, and at that point all bets are off, honey, so you had better be correct. That’s a fundamental human right — it’s called self defense.
But if we can’t get the real criminals today, at least in circumstances like these, then we can get them tomorrow. There’s no need to kill little old ladies in the process.
The Phantom,
I am not sure the kind of civil society you desire is obtainable in the modern era. While it may not be fair, ignorance of the application of force invites abuse. There are too many connections and insufficient civility left in the world.
That whole peasant revolution fashion the west went through has consequences, one of which is that large numbers of tribal fascists no longer fear to act violently. There used to be a confirmed belief on the part of the tribal fascists that to attack civilized people was to invite death. Millions of people died learning this lesson, now tens of millions are dying because the lesson was abandoned.
Perhaps, Patrick, or perhaps not. An interesting, I would suggest, counter-argument is that that kind of civil society is around us everwhere. Consider the argument of Alan Charles Kors, who wrote: “The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one’s breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry “caste.” In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either “poverty” or “consumerism.” In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry “alienation.” In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry “oppression.” In a society of boundless private charity, they cry “avarice.” In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the “exploitation” of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry “injustice.” In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like “liberty” in quotation marks when these refer to the West.”
When was the last time you saw a blaring above-the-fold newspaper headline that said: 25 Million Canadians Had A Good or Better Day Yesterday? Why not?
Vitruvius,
Newspapers don’t report good with any frequency or enthusiasm, except in the sports section. I rarely read newspaper reports about Canadians, because I live in the US. I read more reports about Iraq than I do about Canada, but on my business partner Michael Totten’s blog I communicate regularly with Canadians.
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal because it is an exceptionally good paper that covers my interests better than my local paper does. I am a US Navy veteran and reservist and my international interests are better covered by the WSJ than any other paper I know. The editorial page of the WSJ routinely points out when economic indicators are good because they view their job to be making accurate reports. Most other print journalism trends toward making urgent reports.
My point is not that we live in a world of crap, it is that we live in a world where defenselessness is an unsustainable lifestyle choice. It is not so much that Tibetan monks deserve to be purged, it is just inevitable that they will be purged.
If you act like a speed bump, don’t be surprised when you get run over.
I agree with the points you make, Patrick, many of them I would make myself. I don’t think we’re at odds here. I am trying to consider other pieces of the puzzle too. And I understand you are too. Sure, it’s an ugly job, but as they say, someone’s got’ta do it, might as well be folks like us here at SDA.
PS: I speed up for speed bumps, does that obviate my argument?
Beware of man-made Big Ideas.
i still want to be armed for protection and or selfdefence
Patrick:
“…insufficient civility left in the world.”
That is, I believe, the salient point in the fascinating exchange you’re having.
So, one should ask: If there is “insufficient civility left in the world”, where did it go? And more importantly, where did “sufficient civility” come from in the first place?
To answer these questions leads me to the logical structure of a free civil society, where the armed citizen is demonstratably sovereign.
The erosion of that mindset allows a drug dealer to arrogantly brandish and fire his weapon in your neighbourhood, and no-one personally taking action.
By the way, I’d recommend a Ruger Ranch Rifle. Same effect as an AR, but more likely to keep you out of jail with a liberal judge… 😉
Patrick Lasswell said: “I am not sure the kind of civil society you desire is obtainable in the modern era.”
Patrick, I disagree. We used to have it, not so terribly long ago. I remember it. It was sold for a bag of magic beans by the Liberal Party of Canada and one Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
The problem I personally experience as a law abiding resident of Ontario these days is I have to be MUCH more concerned about the government screwing up my life than I do about criminals. Getting robbed or maybe beat up is as nothing compared to having the cops interested in you.
This is with crime at levels unheard of when I was a kid, I hasten to add. It’s not the Bronx, but its heading that direction. The problem is that government is responding to this crime increase by leaning harder on ME, Mr. Generic Law Abiding Citizen. More regulation, more surveillance, more restrictions on free speech and freedom of assembly, and naturally more taxes.
To reverse this trend some very simple, obvious things need to happen. First, I need my inalienable human rights to self defense and the ownership of property to be recognized by Canadian law. Currently they aren’t. No, I’m not kidding.
Second, people who do violent crimes need to go to jail and stay there for a long time. Murderers need to go to jail -forever-, at the very least. Currently they don’t.
Third, we need to stop importing criminals from third world countries. I have no problem with the normal, good people. But couldn’t we deport the three time loser a-holes back to their home cesspool please?
If we did those three little things, life would improve for me personally, and being a policeman would get a lot less dangerous.
As for the new terrorist threat, it can’t grow in civilized soil. These clowns can’t operate without a community of discontented Muslims to hide in. If the Muslim community is happy and loves Canada they will turn on jihadis like a pack of terriers.
Right now -I- don’t love Canada that much, and I was born here. I have more rights as a visitor in Buffalo than I do in my own house. Canada takes all my money and scares me sometimes. A Muslim immigrant is going to be different? Doubt it.
The Harper government seems to be ever-so-sloooowwwwwwwwly moving in the correct direction, so while they are doing that I’m behind them with a pointed stick, poking them in the butt and yelling FASTER PLEASE!!! So there is hope, but there’s a long road ahead.
A major victory will haver been attained when I no longer have to inform the Provincial Firearms Officer who I’m sleeping with if I want to buy a gun.
Conservative MPs please take note.
Kate, don’t you know what libertarianism is?
Mad Mike,
My sporterized SMLE No.4 Mk.1* looks enough like a hunting rifle to pass muster, carries 10 rounds, and is the fastest firing bolt action weapon in the world. They were making them into the 1960s; albeit in India.
As nice as the Ruger is, I own the SMLE and can get another for under $200 US. If I am compelled to stop a threat using a firearm, I want to use the minimum number of rounds, and the .303 British is going to do that better than anything the Ranch Rifle shoots. I live in a city and cannot afford to spray and pray, if for no other reason than I really like the kids next door. I need to be sure of the first shot and where it will go. Engaging in running gun battles with meth addicts is not an available option.
Vitruvius
I believe that the name of the Party that we founded in Edmonton in 1972 was called the “Libertarian Alternative”.
As for the thread, I think that Kate probably regrets her caption by now.
Patrick:
Agree 100%!
In fact, I have 2 No4 Mk1’s and an older #1. All excellent guns, the action and magazine size being critical.
I suggested a mini 14 thinking something light, handy, cheap, and without quite so much power and range as the .303 (if you have to let fly in a city.)But as you point out, placing your rounds accurately and safely is more likely with a bolt than a semi. Plus anything you hit with that powerful round is guaranteed to immediately lose interest in doing bad things.
One of the great failures of the Canadian gun control fiasco is a huge level of non-compliance. The Lee Enfield, a 12guage, and a Cooey .22 is in every second house where I’m from – the vast majority unregistered.
Our government set out 15 years ago to “denormalize” gun ownership, and have succeeded to some extent.
Libertarian or not, my advice to Americans in your situation is to not only fight to preserve your Second Amendment rights, but to support gun safety, skills, and ownership to new generations of Americans. “Politically Correct” anti-gun “social re-engineering” is your greatest enemy, and our experience is that it’s a slow acting poison – which we Canadians have already ingested.
If you own an SMLE, I would agree buying anything else may be a waste… 😉