Dang...I Think We Need THIS Guy! (Badnarik)

[defjon]

Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
Libertarian Party nominee for President




Gun control laws are victim disarmament
Q: What are your positions concerning gun control?
A: As president, I'll veto any new victim disarmament-'gun control'-legislation, and I'll shut down the agencies that enforce the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws now on the books. My administration will defend that policy in court as necessary. The right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable."

Source: Interview in the Augusta Free Press Aug 13, 2004

Criminals won't prey on armed victims
The first lines of defense against criminals are the victims themselves. Criminals go out of their way to avoid preying on those who might be armed; consequently, crime plummets 30-50% when states enact laws making it easy for responsible citizens to carry a concealed weapon.
Won't all these guns make our society more dangerous? Just the opposite! In 1999, 824 people died from firearm accidents, while the defensive use of guns saved approximately 400,000 lives, in most cases without even wounding the aggressor. Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers (or terrorists) who think nothing of breaking the gun laws.

If you can't quite grasp the concept of guns saving lives, consider how criminals would react to a sign on your lawn saying, "This home is a gun-free zone." Recall that, in "right-to-carry" states, the primary targets of gun-toting crazies were schools posted as "gun-free." Such signs advertise that our children are defenseless prey for the wolves among us.

Source: Campaign website, badnarik.org, "Issues" Jul 13, 2004

Gun control means being able to hit your target
Gun control means being able to hit your target. 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.
Source: Campaign website, badnarik.org, "Issues" Jul 13, 2004

Second Amendment is not negotiable
The Second Amendment is "not negotiable," and Badnarik refuses to get a Texas concealed-weapons permit - because "rights do not require permission."
Source: Michael King, The Austin (TX) Chronicle Jun 11, 2004
~

For one, he actually used "Gun control means being able to hit your target" to answer a question! Bonus points!

He refuses to get a CCW, and clearly, he simply carries his gun anyway. In all honesty, Ben Franklin and his ilk would likely congradulate him.

This site is really great to see how the people you support vote and quote. You know, Bush actually supported the AWB and is a lot more gun grabby than Badnarik.

Also, he seems to have well rounded views on the other hot button issues like Abortion- at least as far as I myself vote. BAN it outright, but still allow for states to decide what their specific populus prefers.

He also doesn't support welfare for immigrants or anyone else.

I like his stance on Criminals too, restitution of Victims- that is monetarily to the victims. If the victim is poor, the criminal earns wages in prison- and doesn't see a dime of it.

Anyway...I looked at a lot of people's stances on guns, and for as much praise as some people get they weren't very impressive. This one really stood out. A lot of good strategies IMO. He deserves a look.

Libertarian doesn't mean liberal.

http://www.issues2000.org/Michael_Badnarik.htm#Gun_Control

 

[Flyboy]

I had dinner with Badnarik last year. Naturally, we talked guns at one point. Turns out he used to shoot IPSC (and yes, he used a 1911).

One of the other people at dinner was a complete blissninny. It was entertaining, debating concealed carry with such a person, and her never knowing that I was carrying at the time.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

He was on the ballot for president last time. I voted for him.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

I voted for Badnarik. For me it was a no-brainer in Maryland, a state that voted for Kerry in a 60/40 landslide.

Anyhow, I met the guy a couple times, and he's certainly passionate about liberty, especially gun rights. I respect him quite a bit for the incredible effort he put into the campaign. He also gets bonus points for being a (self-described) constitutional scholar -- he even teaches courses on the constitution to support himself financially.

Having just praised him, I fully acknowledge that his no-compromise approach and confrontational manner probably make him an unappealing candidate to about 99.9% of the population. I wasn't even confident that he would be an effective president. But when I looked at the alternatives, I put those concerns to rest.

 

[xd9fan]

wow I wish this country loved liberty (like it used too)
sounds like a cool guy.....we need a guys guy like this in the whitehouse.

 

[Lupinus]

We need them in the senant more then the white house. The msot the pres can do is influence, approve, or veto a bill in which case enough senators behind it can vote agian and pass it anyway. I'd like to see them work for locals where they have mroe of a chance of actually getting elected and thats the only way they will get their foot in the door. Pick a state friendly to their views and get it going for the house and senate. The white house wont happen anytime soon, esspecialy if you don't get people into lower levels of goverment so people can see them.

 

[GaryM]

As a long time libertarian I am all for this guy but as a long time libertarian I can tell you he doesn't have a chance of winning.
Damn.

 

[Lupinus]

What he should is run for the house or senate. Something with enough resources he has a chance of doing, or at least a much better chance then pres.

 

[Lupinus]

I'd also say don't bother basicly wasting resources on a run for President, it isn't winable. They should instead focus resources on state and local elections where they at least have a fighting chance and use those resources there instead.

 

[stevelyn]

Unfortunately there are still too many people that give lip service to the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' and continue to believe the two-peas-in-a-pod party is our friend.:banghead:

 

[model 649]

I like his positions and given the opportunity, I would vote for him. Of course at this point I'd vote for a sock-puppet given the present milieu, just to ease my conscience.
Josh

 

[bumm]

I like this guy's attitude, and I become more and more of a Libertarian every year. The best government is LESS government. However, like it or not, third parties in this country almost always serve only as a way to siphon votes away from the most similar major party. The Libertarians are more in line with Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, say, if Hillary runs, your vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for Hillary. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Marty

 

[Live Free Or Die]

I like this guy's attitude, and I become more and more of a Libertarian every year. The best government is LESS government. However, like it or not, third parties in this country almost always serve only as a way to siphon votes away from the most similar major party. The Libertarians are more in line with Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, say, if Hillary runs, your vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for Hillary. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's just as valid to turn what you said 180 degrees around: "Like it or not, the Republicans and Democrats almost always serve only as a way to siphon votes away from the most similar 3rd party."

Also, "a vote for (name your third party candidate) is a vote for (name your major candidate opponent)" is too simplistic. As I pointed out above, in landslide states you can get away with voting 3rd party without worrying about the effects on the other candidates. If your state is polling 10+ percentage points in favor of one candidate the day before the election, please consider voting for the person you really want to win.

 

[Sindawe]

Therefore, say, if Hillary runs, your vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for Hillary. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Ah yes, the old "Throwing your vote away" argument. Sorry, I'm still not buying it. If I cast a ballot for candidate A, it does not work out to a vote for candidate B no matter how you want to dress it up and make it dance. It is STILL a vote for candidate A.

If your state is polling 10+ percentage points in favor of one candidate the day before the election, please consider voting for the person you really want to win

Dude, I ALWAYS vote the person I really want to win. Usually its a Libertarian, occasionally it will be a Republican, once in a great while it will be a Democrat.

 

[Lupinus]

Thats why I say they should focus on local and state elections. I will vote likly for libertarion local and state. But much as I hate the idea as far as president goes I will vote for the canadite I think will do less damage untill you get mroe libertarians with their name known. Or hell at least till they are allowed to get on national TV with the repubs and Democrats so they can get a word in edge wise.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

Dude, I ALWAYS vote the person I really want to win. Usually its a Libertarian, occasionally it will be a Republican, once in a great while it will be a Democrat.

My advice was for those who are afraid to "throw away" their votes by voting their conscience. You're already voting your conscience, so my advice doesn't apply to you.

 

[TallPine]

The Libertarians are more in line with Republicans than Democrats.

I'm not sure that is true at all - maybe on some issues but not on others. It's the conservative lawn order "moral" Republicans who insist on staying the course in the War on (people using some) Drugs, instead of pulling out of that quagmire.

An on another thread on THR, someone was saying something to the effect of: "the problem with Libertarians is that many of them are former Democrats"

So which one is it ...?

 

[UberPhLuBB]

Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
Libertarian Party nominee for President

... In 1999, 824 people died from firearm accidents, while the defensive use of guns saved approximately 400,000 lives, in most cases without even wounding the aggressor. ...

Err... I've never heard this stat before, even from our own side of the argument. Did he pull this out of where the sun don't shine? I also notice he's comparing firearms accidents to lives saved by firearms, not firearms crimes committed, further skewing the stats which may be false to begin with. Where did the 400,000 number come from, and how could it POSSIBLY be accurate? If I show a firearm to discourage a crime and a shot's not fired, I'm sure as hell not reporting it to anyone. That number could be extremely generous or disgustingly low, there's absolutely no way to know.

It sounds like a lie as equally ludicrous as what the leftists spout, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. That's too bad, because his head is in the right place (which also means he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at taking any kind of office).

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I've had the chance to see Badarnik speak and I wouldn't have voted for him even if the Libertarian Party did have a chance at winning in 2004. He is not the kind of person I want in the executive office.

But hey, I'm sure that picture of him in a tricorner hat toting an AR15 will sway the masses to Libertarian ideals any day now...

 

[Live Free Or Die]

I've had the chance to see Badarnik speak and I wouldn't have voted for him even if the Libertarian Party did have a chance at winning in 2004. He is not the kind of person I want in the executive office.

Fair enough. What kind of person do you want in the executive office?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Fair enough. What kind of person do you want in the executive office?

One who is a little more clear that the powers of the executive office do not include being able to force members of Congress to attend classes on "his version of the Constitution" would be a good start.

I'm always a little leery when someone who seems to have a tenuous grasp on the charter document of our government suggests that all government officials will be held to his understanding of that document (complete with a taxes and paper money are unconstitutional interpretation).

Primarily, I would like an executive who embarks on a modest program to:
A) Make people more responsible for their own individual well-being
B) Reduce government's ability to both control and bribe people with tax money

At this point, using a Badarnik style coup by executive action to change government would just result in that executive being successfully impeached by Congress. In addition, it would be every bit as cruel to half the citizens of the United States as taking domesticated animals and turning them loose in the wild to fend for themselves. If you are going to spend several generations breeding personal responsibility out of people, feeding them to Darwin in a massive political change doesn't seem any different from Mao's "Great Leap Forward."

 

[Live Free Or Die]

At this point, using a Badarnik style coup by executive action to change government would just result in that executive being successfully impeached by Congress. In addition, it would be every bit as cruel to half the citizens of the United States as taking domesticated animals and turning them loose in the wild to fend for themselves. If you are going to spend several generations breeding personal responsibility out of people, feeding them to Darwin in a massive political change doesn't seem any different from Mao's "Great Leap Forward."

Well, it's a little different than what Mao was trying to do, but overall I agree with you. I still liked Badnarik better than anyone else running for president in the last election though.

 

[carebear]

Err... I've never heard this stat before, even from our own side of the argument. Did he pull this out of where the sun don't shine? I also notice he's comparing firearms accidents to lives saved by firearms, not firearms crimes committed, further skewing the stats which may be false to begin with. Where did the 400,000 number come from, and how could it POSSIBLY be accurate? If I show a firearm to discourage a crime and a shot's not fired, I'm sure as hell not reporting it to anyone. That number could be extremely generous or disgustingly low, there's absolutely no way to know.

It sounds like a lie as equally ludicrous as what the leftists spout, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. That's too bad, because his head is in the right place (which also means he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at taking any kind of office).

I think the point he's making is that criminal uses aren't relevent in a discussion of possession of weapons by law-abiding gun owners for self-defense (as opposed to "sport" or other presumably range or hunting focussed uses which don't require ready access to unsecured loaded guns).

The comparison is thus between self-defense guns in legal hands causing accidents (the old "you'll shoot your eye" out anti-gun argument) versus those same legal guns being used for their intended purpose.

The 400K, if I recall correctly, is from a real self-reporting study. Can't remember who did it, but it does provide the statistically valid low end to Kleck's study pointing to many more (millions). If you want to win a public argument it is often better to use the lowest good number that meets your needs, as it makes it harder to be dismissed out of hand by the ignorant (they'll buy "thousands" before "millions").

 

[beerslurpy]

I voted for badnarik. Unfortunately I was the only one.

 

[Graystar]

I voted for badnarik. Unfortunately I was the only one.

I voted for him too! Although, I wouldn't if he really had a chance of winning. It was more of a protest vote.

Running the government of the United States is a behemoth of a task and only the Dem or Reps are capable of doing it...at the moment.