I shouldn't have replied since I don't get into these debates anymore, particularly with you guys, but I'll bite this once. I'm not going to argue for either camp here because I don't wholly agree with either side. But as someone who actually agrees with many of the fundamentals of your libertarian position, I want to let you know something.
If you allow the parameters of the debate to be dead kids in the present vs esoteric 18th century political philosophy, you will lose even if you are right.
If you play the whole "cops are bad" and "agents of tyranny" card, you will lose period.
The moment you start posting neckbeard videos about cop killing or 20 minute long videos of a cop arguing with somebody in pajama pants, you have lost. At least scale it up and post G-20 protests or something to make it appear systemic rather than two idiots arguing with each other.
The pro-gun position is a harder one to argue because its punching power is contingent on things that people don't see the merits of on a day to day basis.
You can make the liberty argument, but it's a tough one to be convincing with since it doesn't actually address the points your opposition is making, it just implies that they're less important than curtailing obscure historical events (which is entirely a matter of opinion by the way). It's the kind of argument that works on people with no opinion and people that already agree with you. There are a dozen other arguments you can make to plug the gap in that argument by actually undermining the strength of your opponent's position, but the absolute last fucking thing you want to do is just go "why do you hate freedom?" because it simultaneously admits everything they say and draws a bright dividing line between your position and absolutely anything else that anyone could possibly believe.
Yes I know the liberty argument sounds really unassailable. Yes I know about XYZ historical event. Yes I've seen a thousand Liveleak videos about police brutality, uprisings in foreign countries, dictatorial abuse of power, etc. Most of my friends believe the same thing you do. But if your response the moment you encounter someone who disagrees is to assert that there's something wrong with them for not entirely agreeing with you, well you've gone full Bolshevik on us.
For the record I agree, an armed citizenry is a hedge against tyranny and invasion. I just want you to consider that the way you're arguing it is so ham-handed and melodramatic that you're currently arguing with someone who actually agrees with the fundamental point of your position.
I support libertarians running for office even though I disagree with its underlying assumptions about human behavior because I think it's an influence this country desperately needs, but the last fucking thing you want to do is turn it into a Ron Paul personality cult, a fluoridation conspiracy, or a philosophy of kneejerk suspicion toward government as a concept. That shit didn't even fly in the 18th century much less the 21st, and if you disagree you can go read the Articles of Confederation or the Covenant of the League of Nations followed by a brief summary of why they failed.
Now can we all forget about this annoying college activist and soccer mom shit and go back to planning elite space marine boarding ops in the Star Citizen thread?
