Free Republic

...anarcho-ideologues also believe possession of child pornography is perfectly Constitutional.

The Constitution lists only three crimes and child porn isn't one of them.

Pop-quiz time, CJ.

1. Which three acts is the federal government authorized to criminalize?
2. Why is child porn immoral?

To OWK: We'll all pretend to be interested in your personal problems.

You do that. And we'll all pretend your contribution to this discussion was meaningful.

I meant to say local, not statewide, such as that for state assembly.

...how else, Alan, can you explain a political party that can't get more than 1% of the national vote...

The race for president is one of thousands.

Why is it possible for Libertarians to get 45% of the vote in statewide races but 1% or less in national? Because people are convinced that they have no other option but to slow the headlong rush toward socialism by voting for the lesser of two evils.

However, whether reached quickly or slowly the destination remains the same.

I won't disagree with you that the LP has some weirdos which unfortunately draws negative attention. I and others are working to change that. I think the media likes to focus on them because it's humorous and makes great headlines.

Big whup....We have almost half that out here in little ol' California all by ourselves.

The fiscal year is still new.

But, you're right, big whup. Not to worry. When they run out of money they'll just print more.

Government Posts $54 billion Budget Deficit.

Don't worry. We'll just print more money.

Maybe smoking dope CAUSES Libertarians.

This causes Libertarians.

So does this.

Then there's this, this, this, and this.

Maybe this explains why the Liberteens never get any more than 3% of the vote...

Libertarians frequently receive more than 3% of the vote. If you actually did any research on your own instead of regurgitating brain farts from other posters you'd know that.

By the way, Republicans helped defeat the ballot initiative in Massachusetts to repeal the state income tax. Both Republican governor Jane Swift and Republican governor-elect Mitt Romney publicly denounced the measure. Congradulations.

You need to remove this lie from your website:

Let’s keep in mind that Libertarians and Republicans are generally going in the same direction....both generally want a smaller federal government that is less intrusive.

...they [Libertarians] tend to draw conservative votes away from the GOP candidate.

People are getting sick of hearing the same lies from the GOP year after year about how they support smaller government. It's BS

Interestingly, Congressman Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with losing conservative voters. He kicked his opponents ass by a 2 to 1 margin. Other Republicans should take a lesson. The difference between Ron Paul and other Republicans is Ron Paul has integrity.

This often puts a Socialist in office.

There are none more blind than those who refuse to see.

You say you want smaller government, yet your actions help to grow government by putting Socialist in office who will ignore the Constitution.

Hilarious.

Your vote tends to set your agenda back. Perhaps you should just say home next election? It would be a step in the right direction since you don't seem to want to take responsibility for your seeming desire to see Socialists in office. The sad thing is that you don't have the grasp on reality to see that there is a difference between a candidate that wants to hold government growth and one that wants to have government intrude on every aspect of everyone's life.

I'm going to save this for posterity.

There's obviously no reason to continue this conversation with you.

I'm not understanding how you reconcile your various statements. Either you can make a crime of selling the insane a firearm or you can repeal all gun laws. I don't know how you can have it both ways.

Making it a crime to knowingly give an insane person a weapon isn't gun-control. It's common sense. It's as much a crime to knowingly give an insane person a gun as it is to give an insane person a nailgun. But, we don't need Instacheck at gun stores any more than we need it at Home Depot. We do not need a system of any kind to check the mental status of consumers. It is simply not a problem that requires intervention.

If there are insane people walking freely about then they need to be taken somewhere where they pose no threat to themselves or others. But, we don't need more gun-control.

The proposal being discussed on this thread is intended to make government bigger, to further intrude government into places where it doesn't need to intrude, and to give politicians another political football to kick around and beat each other over the head with.

We need to repeal gun-control for several reasons. Gun-control interferes with the ability of people to defend themselves. The process of obtaining a gun is so burdensome that some people don't bother buying a gun. Others won't buy a gun because they're afraid of getting on a list. As we've seen recently the BATF routinely forces gun shop owners to hand over sales records.

Criminals don't obey gun-control by nature. Gun-control merely disarms law-abiding citizens to the disadvantage of criminals who don't obey gun-control anyway.

Gun-control makes criminals out of people who aren't criminals. A legislature can turn hundreds of thousands of people instantly into felons simply because they own a certain kind of gun. California banned the SKS rifle several years ago. The people who registered their rifles received notices in the mail that they had until a certain date to relinquish their rifles or face criminal prosecution. Sometimes people are prosecuted for defending themselves because they were carring a gun when they weren't supposed to. I've read stories in the newspaper about people who were fined and had their gun confiscated because they brandished it when their life was threatened.

We don't need any more gun-control. We don't need stricter enforcement of existing gun-control. Gun-control should be repealed and the state needs to stop harrassing people for owning guns.

Election results are not dictated by lotteries, random number pickers, or dice rolling. They are determined by conscientious decisions and direct action by voters. Voters determine who the winner is. Your comparison of horse races to elections is ridiculous. No matter how many people at the race track place bets on horses they will not have influenced the outcome of the race in any way. Voting directly affects the outcome of elections. If picking the winner is the reason you vote then you're wasting your time. I vote because I want to reduce government.

I'm not suprised that you don't know who Ron Paul is. Anyone who is genuinely interested in smaller government would make an effort to find out which candidates are really trying to reduce government so they could support that person.

The notion that Republicans are holding back the tide of socialism is laughable. No Republican president has presided over a decrease in federal spending since the 1920's. Republicans have been promising to abolish the Dept. of Education and NEA for 20 years but have repeatedly increased funding for it. Republicans held a majority of seats in Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Since Reagan became president the federal budget has grown from $600 billion to $2.1 trillion and the federal government has spent $30 trillion. The national debt is $6 trillion (officially, although I suspect the real amount is higher).

George W. Bush has yet to veto any legislation since taking office and with his own party in control of Congress it's unlikely he'll do so. According to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, social welfare programs under Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton. Republicans have been on a spending spree since Bush took office. They've wasted hundreds of billions on pork. You can see some of it on this list.

I watched the debates between Bush and Gore. When Gore proposed a taxpayer funded prescription drug program Bush should've pointed out that government has no place paying for prescription drugs with taxpayers' money. But, instead he proposed a government program of his own. On national TV Bush said that no American should pay more than a third of his income to the federal government (but up to and including a third is ok). Bush and Ashcroft have said they support an individual's right to keep and bear arms while supporting stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control).

You said you'd like to see federal programs eliminated and others scaled back but you don't expect that to happen in your lifetime. And why should you? You vote for people who expand existing programs and create new ones. Keep it up and you'll meet your expectations.

The federal budget doesn't need to grow to keep up with inflation. Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve which needs to be abolished. Money is created when the Fed loans money to government or to banks (which loan it to consumers). The money is created on printing machines or via electronic bookkeeping entries. When there's more money in proportion to the available goods and services the purchasing power of the dollar declines and the costs of goods and services rise to compensate. The Constitution states that our money must be Gold or Silver. Paper money is not Constitutional.

Anyone who is serious about gun-rights would be wise to cancel their membership and never send any money to the NRA. The NRA is a group of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control and has even endorsed some gun-control legislation. I suggest joining Gun Owners of America or JPFO instead. They don't compromise.

The question you need to ask yourself is, "Do you want smaller government?" If the answer to that question is 'yes' then the first thing you must do is to stop supporting the people who are making government bigger. You will never get smaller government any other way.

You say in 109, "Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime"? That's making the seller responsible for knowing the mental health and history of the purchaser...

It is a crime to knowingly give an insane person a gun or any other kind of weapon. No one can be 100% certain that any given person is not sane.

You have already gone seeking a solution in government, to a problem you now say doesn't exist.

I don't seek government solutions because government solves nothing. Insane people getting guns is not a problem requiring a remedy. We don't need Instacheck to esure that insane people don't get guns, or don't buy sharp kitchen utensils at Walmart, or power tools at Home Depot.

This is a government program going in search of a problem.

This law is an attempt to make the NICS actually accomplish the goal you desire.

If there's been a rash of insane people acquiring guns then the problem is insane people walking freely about, not the accessibility of guns.

There are so many reasons to oppose this government program. The federal government has no business doing this to begin with. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. It will undoutedly be used for purposes other than the one it's intended for. It will invariably become more expensive and intrusive.

What we need is the repeal of gun-control and the abolition of the War on Drugs, not another government program or government database.

This law represents a political solution going in search of a problem. There isn't now, nor has there ever been, a crisis involving insane and deranged people buying guns. It used to be possible to buy guns anonymously through the mail.

The increase in crime in this country is primarily attributable to the War on Drugs and gun-control. Ending the war on drugs and repealing all gun-control would result in an enormous decrease in violent crime. Open-carry and concealed-carry should be allowed without the need for a license or any government interference whatsoever.

It's misleading to say I don't want to give somebody the means with which to accomplish something. Government is not the fix-all, cure-all for societal problems. Appealing to government for help is asking for trouble. No law or program will ever be written and enforced exactly the way you imagined it. It will invariably result in waste and abuse for the reasons I previously outlined.

Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions.

So you'd prefer to charge a shopkeeper who gave an insane person a gun, even though you won't give him an effective way to find out if the purchaser is insane? [emphasis added]

I won't give him an effective way?

I'm reminded of something a wise man once said.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

The purpose of this law is to jusfity bigger, more intrusive government. It is intended to make certain politicians look like they're tough on crime. As with every government program it will invariably fail, facilitate misuse and abuse, and give politicians a reason to increase funding in the future when it doesn't produce the desired results. It will become a political football. Once it gets enacted it will become nearly impossible to repeal. Any attempt to cut funding will bring accusations from the opposition of being soft on crime or of being gun fanatics.

Uhhh...That's what this law is about.

Uhhh...It's already a crime to give an insane person a weapon. We don't need any more laws.

Your result is only to split the conservative vote, often giving a Democrat/Socialist a victory. This does not advance your agenda.

As it has been so frequently pointed on this forum Libertarians are not Conservatives.

Voting Republican does not advance my agenda. Voting Republican rewards Republicans for making government bigger and intrusive. It says to Republicans, "I like your prescription drug program. I like your interventionist foreign-policy. I want stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control). I want the government to continue to meddle in education and health care. I want to preserve Social Security."

Your best bet is to infiltrate the Republican party, run your candidates under the Republican banner for the lower offices allowing them to develop campaign skills and get name recognition.

Libertarians neither need nor want any help from Republicans. We want Republicans to simply continue doing what they've always done. That's all the help we need.

...you can't understand that we can't roll back 50 years of Socialist advances overnight!

Oh, but we can roll it back overnight. We need people with integrity like Ron Paul who will vote consistently against big government.

...you help the Socialists make more advances?

The last Republican president to preside over a reduction in the federal budget was Warren G. Harding 80 years ago. Since then we've had 9 Republican presidents all of whom have made government bigger.

Republicans held a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Were they working to roll back 50 years of Socialist advances?

...I didn't say insane, I said mentally deranged.

What's the difference? In either case the people in question are incapable of advocating their own rights.

If you have doubts just spend some time downtown on the streets of any major city. Should these people have a right to carry firearms?

I have to wonder what insane people are doing wandering the streets.

Anyone who lacks sufficient mental capacity to advocate their own rights, or who is incapable of appreciating the consequences of their actions, should not be permitted to have a weapon of any kind let alone a gun. Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime.

...do you not think that some people, such as the mentally deranged, should not have guns?

Giving a gun to an insane person is as much a crime as giving an insane person razor blades and knives, or allowing an insane person to drive a car.

This issue isn't about gun ownership. It's about wreckless endangerment on the part of a steward or guardian.

Do we not just need to enforce the laws we currently have instead of spending time passing more?

Gun-control laws are immoral and should be repealed, not enforced. Gun-control hinders the ability of individuals to defend themselves and makes criminals out of people who aren't criminals. With the stroke of a pen politicians can turn hundreds of thousands of people into felons simply because they own a certain kind of gun.

The legislation you are worried about is sponsored by DEMOCRATS! It is being pushed for by DEMOCRATS! It is a scheme that is an add-on to Clinton requested legislation, oh, btw, Clinton is also a DEMOCRAT!

Who sponsors legislation is irrelevant. Republicans hold a majority in the House. Republicans have the final say on which legislation passes and which doesn't. The bill discussed on this thread was passed while Republicans held a majoity of seats in the House. The Lautenberg Gun Ban which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 was passed while Republicans held a majority of seats in the House. It was a purely symbolic gesture intended to make Republicans look like they're tough on crime.

So is Bingo Jim in WI, who will be our next Governor thanks to Ed Thompson of your party.

Ed Thompson had nothing to do with McCallum's loss. To imply otherwise is a Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy.

...are you a member of the NRA?

The NRA is an organization of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control. I support the repeal of gun-control. I will never vote for a candidate who supports stricter enforcement of gun-control. NRA ratings are worthless. Any legislator who votes to enact more gun-control or supports stricter enforcement of gun-control deserves an F. Since the NRA supports both I give them an F.

...which party is it that is trying to allow CC for law abiding citizens?

You keep hammering away at getting those state-issued licenses, ok? I'll keep working toward a Libertarian society so it won't be necessary to ask the state for permission to carry a concealed weapon.

However, you continue to assert that there is no diference between Republicans and Democrats.

The differences are so insignificant as to be inconsequential.

Perhaps it is the LP term "Republicrats" that confuses you. Don't blame the Republicans for your confusion, blame YOUR party! You guys can't seem to keep them straight.

My opinion of Republicans was arrived at through many hours of reading and research, some of which I've presented to you in previous posts and which you've ignored. Whether your refusal to even acknowledge what I presented was the result of willfull ignorance or denial I have no idea.

Perhaps also you are confused by the DEMOCRATS; since they know their true agenda would be instantly rejected, they pretend to be Republicans when they campaign on issues.

Coincidently, Republicans campaign like Libertarians with talk of reducing government. But, after they get elected they make government bigger.

You also assume that I am a Republican, since I am not a rabid LP'er. I am not, my views lie much closer to the LP than to the Republicans, however unlike you I allow reality in my world and know that without power to make changes you can't make changes!

It doesn't matter to me what party you belong to. It's your voting that concerns me. Unlike you I came to realize a long time ago that I'll never get smaller government if I keep voting for people who are making government bigger.

I am a Constitutionalist; I believe that the Founders ment EXACTLY what they wrote in the Constitution and Bill of Rights...

Ask anyone in Congress and I'm sure they'll say the same thing. Republican Congressman David Dreier makes regular appearances on Larry Elder's radio talk show in Los Angeles. Larry is a Libertarian. Every time Dreier comes on he talks about how Republicans are working hard to reduce government. But, I've been watching Dreier's voting record for a couple of years. He votes for nearly every increase in government. When Larry confronts him about it Dreier's response is that Republicans kept government from growing less than Democrats. That is unacceptable.

Also, it was a DEMOCRAT dominated court that saw the line I have searched my copy of the Constitution for. Try as I might, I just can't find that line about "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE". It should be easy to find since, according to Democrats, Athiests and Lawers, it is the entire foundation of the Constitution.

It is immoral to force people to finance the advancement of ideas which may be inconsistent with their own values or beliefs.

It was a DEMOCRAT court that discovered a woman had a god-given right to kill her unborn baby any time she chose. Again, I just can't find that in my copy of the Constitution (or the bible for that matter).

Abortion wasn't the calamity that it is today until after the Great Society programs. Abortion was virtually unheard of 50 years ago. Sure, it still happened. But, we were in a far better position to do something about it. The socialist Welfare State subsidizes lifestyles which encourage the kind of behavior that results in unwanted pregnancies. Republicans have increased funding for the socialist Welfare State decade after decade.

And of course you finally resort to the typical ad hominem attacks with insinuation of drug use and whatnot.