[Michael_2112]

So what is the deal with Badnarik? The Good? The Bad? The Ugly?

I had the oppurtunity to take a look at his website at: www.badnarik.org He certainly appears to be a friend to gun owners everywhere!



From http://www.badnarik.org/issues.html#Guns

As a gun owner, I fled California in 1997 after the legislature of that socialist wasteland passed 18 anti-gun laws - six of which would have made me a felon. My number one priority will be to oppose the state's assertion that I am required to fill out paperwork and supply photos and fingerprints - just like a criminal - in order to exercise a right that the Founding Fathers died to protect. You are not required to have a concealed carry permit in order to exercise your right to "keep and bear arms". It is an oxymoron to suggest such a thing. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. It is time for government bureaucrats to acknowledge this fact.


From http://www.badnarik.org/issues.html#secondamendment

2A

If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.


Sounds good to me!

What does everyone know about him?


Thanks,

~Mike

[Jim March]

I've met him - very sane, good speaker, good guy...he's about as good as the Libertarian party generally puts forward.

No experience, can't win of course.

People like him need to put forward serious effort to get on city councils, school boards, work their way up. Instead, because they have no REAL interest in "running other people's lives" (which is a good thing), but want to prevent other people running their lives (good again), so they try and jump WAY up the chain.

Sigh. It never works.

There are just TWO options if you want to change society to a freer state:

1) "Put your dues in" and work your way up the political process from the inside, while trying to hang onto your soul;

2) Try the "outsider" method of activism, lobbying, investigating the bad stuff that happens politically. Keep 'em honest knowing there's people like you ready to hunt them down in an endless PR war from hell when they REALLY act like pirates.

I picked option 2.

Now, to be fair to hardcore LPers like Michael, it's possible to use deliberately failed campaigns to raise public awareness when you're a #2 type. Pat Wright running for Lt. Governor on the LP ticket in California raised that to a whole new art form. By sitting for his campaign picture in the official state flyer with a ferret on his lap, he set a precident: you can be pictured with contraband :D plus he showed just how dumb the prohibitionist mindset is. And when those flyers were used in elementary schools to teach about the political process, Pat won the "mock elections" among the kids (a cute furry critter is perhaps cheating). Said kids learned that it's possible to fight a bad law (and "city hall"), a very important lesson.

That's cool.

The problem is, if you throw all your support into a guy doing stuff like that, YOU become less effective as a #2 type activist.

By all means, help a guy like Michael or Pat get a PR push out, but leave yourself fully functional in the overall fight.

[Shamaya]

There are just TWO options if you want to change society to a freer state:

1) "Put your dues in" and work your way up the political process from the inside, while trying to hang onto your soul;

2) Try the "outsider" method of activism, lobbying, investigating the bad stuff that happens politically. Keep 'em honest knowing there's people like you ready to hunt them down in an endless PR war from hell when they REALLY act like pirates.When I get to the hereafter, I'll inform Gandhi and King of this.

Michael's a good man. I'd vote for him over George "Screw Emerson AND Bean" Busch in a heartbeat.

[Jim March]

Ghandi and King did option 2. King in particular never ran for office and was never corrupted by the process - probably as a result. (Jesse Jackson, on the other hand...)

Ghandi didn't try for office either, while the British ruled...once they were gone, he didn't WANT leadership, it was forced on him by circumstance, public opinion and necessity (to avert a Muslim/Hindu war).

But neither men were by inclination or desire "politicians". And they were VERY successful.

[Jim March]

Angel, what really matters is the primaries. The place to stop a Dan Lungren or other anti-freedom GOPer is at the primaries.

You can even make a case that in California, with the GOP basically no longer a power at all, getting gun owners to register Dem(!) to shift the primaries THERE in a pro-freedom direction is the best tactic. I don't quite go that far myself, I think there's still hope for the GOP both as an overall force and shifting them in a pro-freedom McClintockish direction.