In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Libertarian Gun Views
hxm1982
Member Posts: 65 ✭✭
Greets to those who read,
Libertarian Politicians such as Congressman Ron Paul (R) of Texas believes that one should just be able to buy any gun they want. To be able to buy it without having to pay some fee to go through a big government background check! Sell any gun without having to pay some fee for a big government license!
Self determination for the American people! Liberty and the Second Amendment!
Libertarian Politicians such as Congressman Ron Paul (R) of Texas believes that one should just be able to buy any gun they want. To be able to buy it without having to pay some fee to go through a big government background check! Sell any gun without having to pay some fee for a big government license!
Self determination for the American people! Liberty and the Second Amendment!
Comments
I happen to agree with a LOT of what he has to say.
TOO bad he is not the POTUS. [V]
yeah, name rings a bell..[:D]
Yep, heard of him. Exception to the rule that ALL politicians suck. Too bad more aren't like him.
quote:Originally posted by cccooper
THE Ron Paul? Of the RevolUTION?
Yep, heard of him. Exception to the rule that ALL politicians suck. Too bad more aren't like him.
Seriously.
The "majority" of the people that actually go out and vote are two party minded mentality and independent's or other party's just aren't in the inner circle enough to make a difference. Voting for "other's" can be like throwing your vote to the wind, unless you're satisfied with making a "statement" instead of a choice .. but the other option is that stupid "lessor of the two Evil's" that ends up being just another Evil.
Best that anyone can hope for is that someone that gets in is for the people (unlikely as that may be) and once in can be given sufficent support to keep them in for the duration.
Dunno. I don't have the answer. I know I have to vote, I don't like the choices for the most part, but I don't want to carry the burden of not being in and fighting for the right choice.
Enlighten me.
[xx(]
Okay ... but can he win? Why is it that the real winner's can't seem to carry the vote but the loser's just slip right in there?
Seriously.
The "majority" of the people that actually go out and vote are two party minded mentality and independent's or other party's just aren't in the inner circle enough to make a difference. Voting for "other's" can be like throwing your vote to the wind, unless you're satisfied with making a "statement" instead of a choice .. but the other option is that stupid "lessor of the two Evil's" that ends up being just another Evil.
Best that anyone can hope for is that someone that gets in is for the people (unlikely as that may be) and once in can be given sufficent support to keep them in for the duration.
Dunno. I don't have the answer. I know I have to vote, I don't like the choices for the most part, but I don't want to carry the burden of not being in and fighting for the right choice.
Enlighten me.
[xx(]
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
-John Quincy Adams -
You have been enlightened, at your request.
Keep it simple.
quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
Okay ... but can he win? Why is it that the real winner's can't seem to carry the vote but the loser's just slip right in there?
Seriously.
The "majority" of the people that actually go out and vote are two party minded mentality and independent's or other party's just aren't in the inner circle enough to make a difference. Voting for "other's" can be like throwing your vote to the wind, unless you're satisfied with making a "statement" instead of a choice .. but the other option is that stupid "lessor of the two Evil's" that ends up being just another Evil.
Best that anyone can hope for is that someone that gets in is for the people (unlikely as that may be) and once in can be given sufficent support to keep them in for the duration.
Dunno. I don't have the answer. I know I have to vote, I don't like the choices for the most part, but I don't want to carry the burden of not being in and fighting for the right choice.
Enlighten me.
[xx(]
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
-John Quincy Adams -
You have been enlightened, at your request.
Keep it simple.
Was that how John Q made it to be POTUS?
"The decision in the 1824 election of the President of the United States fell, according to the Constitution of the United States, upon the House of Representatives, as none of the candidates had secured a majority of the electors chosen by the states, and Adams, who stood second to Andrew Jackson in the electoral vote, was chosen and served from March 4, 1825, to March 3, 1829"
RE: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=a000041
[?]
Ah, it was offered as an illustration of a basic philosophy of voting principle, rather than pragmatism.
An illustration that is consistently ignored by most or that is an alien concept.
quote:Was that how John Q made it to be POTUS?
Ah, it was offered as an illustration of a basic philosophy of voting principle, rather than pragmatism.
An illustration that is consistently ignored by most or that is an alien concept.
But, it Did work for John Q ...... didn't it.
[:0]
Okay ... but can he win? Why is it that the real winner's can't seem to carry the vote but the loser's just slip right in there?
Seriously.
The "majority" of the people that actually go out and vote are two party minded mentality and independent's or other party's just aren't in the inner circle enough to make a difference. Voting for "other's" can be like throwing your vote to the wind, unless you're satisfied with making a "statement" instead of a choice .. but the other option is that stupid "lessor of the two Evil's" that ends up being just another Evil.
Best that anyone can hope for is that someone that gets in is for the people (unlikely as that may be) and once in can be given sufficent support to keep them in for the duration.
Dunno. I don't have the answer. I know I have to vote, I don't like the choices for the most part, but I don't want to carry the burden of not being in and fighting for the right choice.
Enlighten me.
[xx(]
Campaign and advocate for the candidate who is going to uphold the constitution. Break the cycle of only two choices. The only reason there are only two choices is that majority of voters have been programed for two choices. They are afraid, afraid that others will tell them they gave away the election. That they threw away thier vote. Afraid to admit they have lost thier principles and do not know how to get them back or don't want to put out the effort to stand on principle.
The party hacks say that we need to vote out the D's and vote in the R's, then work from within to fix it. Standing on principle will never work or takes too long, "we gotta stop them now", then we can fix it from within. Give me a break, how many election cycles will this take? What is it that will make the current crop of politicos, straighten up and fly right? Nothing. They will lie to get elected and stab the citizen in the back. It took a long time to get to this sad state of affairs and it will either take a long time to get back or some other major upheaval. The status quo will never change until only those who will actually abide by and support the constitution are elected. We will be no worse off standing on principle until the rest of the country realizes thier folly and joins in, than if we debate which turd smells better.
quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
Okay ... but can he win? Why is it that the real winner's can't seem to carry the vote but the loser's just slip right in there?
Seriously.
The "majority" of the people that actually go out and vote are two party minded mentality and independent's or other party's just aren't in the inner circle enough to make a difference. Voting for "other's" can be like throwing your vote to the wind, unless you're satisfied with making a "statement" instead of a choice .. but the other option is that stupid "lessor of the two Evil's" that ends up being just another Evil.
Best that anyone can hope for is that someone that gets in is for the people (unlikely as that may be) and once in can be given sufficent support to keep them in for the duration.
Dunno. I don't have the answer. I know I have to vote, I don't like the choices for the most part, but I don't want to carry the burden of not being in and fighting for the right choice.
Enlighten me.
[xx(]
Campaign and advocate for the candidate who is going to uphold the constitution. Break the cycle of only two choices. The only reason there are only two choices is that majority of voters have been programed for two choices. They are afraid, afraid that others will tell them they gave away the election. That they threw away thier vote. Afraid to admit they have lost thier principles and do not know how to get them back or don't want to put out the effort to stand on principle.
The party hacks say that we need to vote out the D's and vote in the R's, then work from within to fix it. Standing on principle will never work or takes too long, "we gotta stop them now", then we can fix it from within. Give me a break, how many election cycles will this take? What is it that will make the current crop of politicos, straighten up and fly right? Nothing. They will lie to get elected and stab the citizen in the back. It took a long time to get to this sad state of affairs and it will either take a long time to get back or some other major upheaval. The status quo will never change until only those who will actually abide by and support the constitution are elected. We will be no worse off standing on principle until the rest of the country realizes thier folly and joins in, than if we debate which turd smells better.
Thumbs up on that [:)] but another problem that I see is the offset voting ... people get to see what other states are doing and they panic and change their votes to go with the flow. It's crap to have one primary months before others .. why can't they just have all of the primary's on the same day and hold the results until the next day after all of the votes are in or at least in progress? Same for the General election .. more crap when they start declaring the winner before the poles close on the west coast .. have election day and then have a results day after, so people won't drop out when things aren't looking up. [:(!]
Also, isn't it time to go with the actual vote count and get rid of the electorial college? Live voting instead of mail in's and dip their fingers into ink to prove that they haven't voted more than once. Enough of dead people voting. Well, physically dead anyway. [8D] Not much that can be done for the zombies.
Let's add in a real majority vote and say that a person needs at least two thirds of the votes to get elected .. that ought to put a clamp on somebody's parade.
[:o)]
If U do not serve in the militia , due to becoming a citizen after the draft age, then U can take 3 courses 1 firearms in general along with maintenence. 2 State National Guard integration in times of crisis, similar to the Fema and Homeland security training currently available. 3 Shooting sports, Personal Defense , concealed carry, and Hunters safety. Along with a Practical Qualification.
Call me crazy but if U are not part of a well organized Militia I see nothing that states U have any right to own, possess or use anything.
I interpret the constitution as stated not , what I want it to be, the provision for courses and a practical is my lberal view of the matter , but I would gladly discount it, for a true Constitutional Representative Republic that we should be. However we are not, and haven't been for a long time
quote:"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
John Quincy Adams quotes
Once folks understand this is the right thing to do, our republic can return to the path the founders set it on.
Our current rulers(rulers because they refuse to listen to us, the followers, and therefore they cannot be leaders) do not share the same principles as the citizens of the republic. If you wish them to, then you must make the vote about principle and vote for those who have the principles you share.
The zombies will always be there, 12 ga slugs are the cure IMO.[;)]
I think gun ownership should be in the form of militias as stated. And as a citizen U serve 18 months in a Reserve National Guard "Militia: State Unit. By doing such and not comiting a violent felony, U can own and possess whatever firearm U desire. THis would include any FULL AUTO weapons that are of possible use in case of emergancy or approved by state militia. For example if Your STATE employs 556 M4s and 762 Machineguns, Then the ownership of a Full auto weapon that fires the 556 or 762 should not be discouraged. If U want other calibers than they should be taxed, as luxury items
If U do not serve in the militia , due to becoming a citizen after the draft age, then U can take 3 courses 1 firearms in general along with maintenence. 2 State National Guard integration in times of crisis, similar to the Fema and Homeland security training currently available. 3 Shooting sports, Personal Defense , concealed carry, and Hunters safety. Along with a Practical Qualification.
Call me crazy but if U are not part of a well organized Militia I see nothing that states U have any right to own, possess or use anything.
I interpret the constitution as stated not , what I want it to be, the provision for courses and a practical is my lberal view of the matter , but I would gladly discount it, for a true Constitutional Representative Republic that we should be. However we are not, and haven't been for a long time
From what I have learned since I came on board this forum, someone is going to take you up on that "call me crazy" request, may as well be me. [;)]
Each and every person capable was, and should still be, "a member of a militia" and ready to heed the call to arms when the need arises. You should not be required to join or belong to any government military unit at any level for that purpose and you should not be restricted by your desire not to join a formal milita. Armed citizen's are what made this nation free from tyranny, and hopefully will assure that this nation remains that way.
Other's on this forum can explain the concept better than I, but the individual, the free citizen, is the milita that is the basis for freedom in this country. Whether it be by pitchfork, or sword, or the modern weapons of the time, you need be ready to heed the call.
[:)]
fyrfinder,
quote:"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
John Quincy Adams quotes
Once folks understand this is the right thing to do, our republic can return to the path the founders set it on.
Our current rulers(rulers because they refuse to listen to us, the followers, and therefore they cannot be leaders) do not share the same principles as the citizens of the republic. If you wish them to, then you must make the vote about principle and vote for those who have the principles you share.
The zombies will always be there, 12 ga slugs are the cure IMO.[;)]
Ditto on that +1 [:)]
SuperCalifragilisticXP311, simply, the founders standard for being a militia member was, EVERY MALE between the age of 18 and 45. You have the Federalist view. Fortunately, the anti-federalist view prevailed.
Yeah, I remember back in the 50's .. I wasn't allowed to drink "colored" water or sit on the "black folk's section" in court in New Orlean's. I was young then and really couldn't understand.
[:(]
We would end up with a "democratically elected" president like Cuba and Venezuela, elected by New York and California.
This may be getting off the topic, but I have been doing research on the Constitution for years and I, like almost everyone here, recognize that we have a federal not national government and it has very limited authority as delegated by the states to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Authority lies either in the federal or state spheres. So, I am beginning to believe that since no "authority" to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was delegated to the federal government, no authority to legislate with regard to firearms exists in Article I, Section 8, and since the commerce clause only delegated authority by the states to the fed to regulate, which means "keep regular" not control trade across state borders, it seems to me that perhaps the federal government has no authority to "regulate" firearms at all.
I agree. The "authority" they exert over firearms does not come from the Constitution, it comes from the will of politicians who ignore the Constitution and their oath of office.
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
This may be getting off the topic, but I have been doing research on the Constitution for years and I, like almost everyone here, recognize that we have a federal not national government and it has very limited authority as delegated by the states to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Authority lies either in the federal or state spheres. So, I am beginning to believe that since no "authority" to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was delegated to the federal government, no authority to legislate with regard to firearms exists in Article I, Section 8, and since the commerce clause only delegated authority by the states to the fed to regulate, which means "keep regular" not control trade across state borders, it seems to me that perhaps the federal government has no authority to "regulate" firearms at all.
I agree. The "authority" they exert over firearms does not come from the Constitution, it comes from the will of politicians who ignore the Constitution and their oath of office.
Let's not forget, the blame lays squarely on OUR shoulders.
We have allowed this to come about. We can either get back to the people's contract (constitution) or wipe our collective * with it.
It is either the supreme law of the land, or it is not. This IS a black and white issue.
I agree. The "authority" they exert over firearms does not come from the Constitution, it comes from the will of politicians who ignore the Constitution and their oath of office.
edit: brother James, you covered it already.[;)][B)]<--me[:D]
And lack of will of the citizenry to make them uphold their oaths.
Of course, as has already been mentioned, half of the citizenry on the teat of these slimy corrupt pols, but are still allowed to vote.
Brad Steele