NRA and Libertarians

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gun rights are not the only issue, what good is the RKBA when the govt can illegally tap your phones without a warrant or suspend Habeus Corpus on thier whim in the name of a war on an idea?

+1. It is all part of a larger picture and people can't focus on just one
object in the scene.

-Talk of CCW reciprocity

...and Castle Doctrine laws....both of which I might note have sometimes been
signed into laws under Democrat governors in their respective states.
Another factor are State AGs who are appointed by Democrats who
are really not anti-2A in practice. If anything, they are very careful about
that considering they may try to run for higher office in the future.

However, at the Federal level when it comes to chipping away at the 2A
one party uses a sledge hammer and the other uses a wrecking ball.
 
Translation: Let's just hang here and tread water instead of swimming to shore.
The LP isn't capable of winning, let alone starting that swim toward shore.

Thats the big problem with the LP ... they still can't get it through their heads that the Greens have a better chance of landing a candidate in higher office and that by splitting the pro-liberty vote between Republicans and Libertarians we do nothing but put Democrats in office.

The only way we'll see large scale implementation of libertarian ideals is if they are pushed by people with (R) after their name, because we damn sure aren't going to see the DNC support freedom (other than freedom to hate America, offend Christians and to stick it in what/whomever you want).
 
The problem with continuing to vote Republican is that your vote supports not only RKBA but also war in Iraq, increased taxes, huge new spending programs, expanding entitlements, and a government that is growing at a rate faster than at any time since WWII.

Which is fine if you support all those things yourself. For those of us who don't, it's a problem.

I was a single issue voter for a long time, and the Repubs got my vote because I agreed with a lot of their stuff (small government, lower taxes, economic conservatism) while the Dems were pretty clearly opposite that. Now it's getting pretty hard to tell the difference between the two, and I'm having a hard time with being a single-issue voter.

So for me it's no longer a choice between the lesser of evils, it's a vote between two almost equal -- and often indistinguishable -- evils. I guess one way to look at it is that, well, as long as I'm voting for evil, I may as well pick the evil that lets me keep my guns.

Another way to look at it is "Hell with this. I'm voting Libertarian."
 
I don't, I was also shocked to see Ron Paul, who votes against most everything as being "unconstitutional", only got a B+.

Ron Paul was against the federal legislation that would interfere with states' anti-gun legislation.

While Ron Paul is clearly "pro-gun", he is also pro-state's rights.
He does not believe it is proper to right some wrongs by allowing the central government usurp yet more power.

miko
 
I'll just throw this in here: Range voting breaks the two-party stranglehold. Rate candidates 1-10, as many candidates as you like. Highest score wins.

www.rangevoting.org
 
The LP isn't capable of winning, let alone starting that swim toward shore.

That's the problem, you say we can't get to shore by swimming because it's too far so don't bother trying, I say we can't get to shore because we're not trying. You say the LP isn't capable of winning an election because no one votes for them (obviously), I say if enough people voted for them, they'd win an election. You cannot possibly be saying that even if enough people voted Libertarian they still wouldn't win an election, that's illogical.

They're only incapable of winning because to many people are afraid to swim. That's an issue with the people, not the party.


Thats the big problem with the LP ... they still can't get it through their heads that the Greens have a better chance of landing a candidate in higher office and that by splitting the pro-liberty vote between Republicans and Libertarians we do nothing but put Democrats in office.

So they should just get out of the way then? To hell with their pro-liberty views, right, let's just all vote Republican and get bigger government and the erosion of our rights just as much as we'd get from the big D's, just in different areas. Yeah, that sounds like a great alternative, fear mongering over a doomsday "The Democrats will win the House and the Presidential Election" is a good scare tactic to keep people voting for your party, but it's hardly a solution to the problem that both the GOP and The Democrats stink to high heaven these days.


The only way we'll see large scale implementation of libertarian ideals is if they are pushed by people with (R) after their name, because we damn sure aren't going to see the DNC support freedom (other than freedom to hate America, offend Christians and to stick it in what/whomever you want).

That's a nice thought, but it's not gonna happen. The R's aren't about liberty, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the Dems do.

We're given a choice between one side infringing on our liberties and another side doing the same, just in different areas or ways, and your position is that we should try and change one of the parties and vote for them than to abandon them as a whole and vote for the party that actually supports our beliefs?

That's like telling your best friend to marry the chick that won't let him out of the house without her with him, makes him go to the church that she chooses, invades his privacy and snoops through his mail, listens to his phone calls and reads his e-mails just because she says she won't make him get rid of his guns because it's better than the bisexual chick that wants to spend all of his money while she doesn't work, won't let him hunt or hike and would make him get rid of his guns. To me, that's not a choice, that's a suicide pact with an idiot.

Me, I'll stay single as long as I have to in order to find the girl that respects the both of us enough to recognize that we're both free individuals in a partnership and values that as much as or above anything else. Fortunately enough for me, I’ve already found her, and even if she never agrees to marry me, I'd rather spend my time in a fruitless effort towards freedom than a successful endeavor of servitude.


When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.
 
That's a nice thought, but it's not gonna happen. The R's aren't about liberty, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the Dems do.
That my friends is the "Big Lie" told by the leftist run MSM (and bought hook, line and sinker by tons of libertarian minded people and the LP) to divide the freedom loving people.

The RLC is fighting to "libertarianize" the GOP ... I believe our efforts to turn the GOP into a more libertarian party are going to bear much more fruit than trying to get members of the LP into office.

The problem with continuing to vote Republican is that your vote supports not only RKBA but also war in Iraq, increased taxes, huge new spending programs, expanding entitlements, and a government that is growing at a rate faster than at any time since WWII.
Its the Democrats that are going to increase taxes, not the Republicans. Democrats will create huge new spending programs, expand entitlements and grow government if they get into power ... I know the DNC ads running right now try to make it look like the GOP have become "tax and spenders" but replacing them with Democrats isn't going to make the situation better.

Pushing the GOP back toward libertarianism is what will actually get libertarian ideals implemented.

Changing the GOP will be easier than changing the entire government (especially if its run by the DNC). And realistically its our only option ... the LP will NEVER get enough votes to win anything significant because despite the fact that libertarianism IS right, most Americans don't want liberty, they want security.

The only way for libertarian ideals to win the day is to ride in on either Trojan Donkey or Trojan Elephant (and the Donkey ain't havin' it ... at least parts of the GOP are open to libertarianism).


Ron Paul has led the way, all we need to do is follow.
 
I recall reading that the NRA says that it likes nearly all Libertarians.

However, NRA is about achieving specific legislative and judicial goals, not playing third-party games.

And +10 Zundfolge
 
When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating.

The thing that Libertarians just don't get is if you don't win, nobody (in government) gives a damn about "your voice".


Do you honestly think that if Democrats win because of a bunch of Libertarians that they are going to go "wow, those Libertarians seem to have a lot of support, lets abandon our anti-gun, anti-property rights, large government nanny state agenda in favor of theirs because we'll pick up a few dozen votes (even though it will cost us thousands).

Hell, the GOP (which is half way there when it comes to libertarianism) doesn't pay attention to votes it loses to the LP.

The Libertarian Party is a wonderful dream, but its just a dream.


Now if we could implement jlbraun's Range Voting ... then you'd have a point that about the voices of the losers being heard.
 
Big lie? The KGB had a term for people that would say such things in the face of what's really going on in the country today, "useful idiots". And no, it doesn't mean that I think you're stupid or that I'm trying to insult you, but you so blindly believe in "the party" that you're ignoring the raging fire in your face.

Let's look at this so-called "Big Lie":


4th Amendment: Wiretaps without warrants, federal intrusion into internet traffic, e-mails, library records and whatever else they deem necessary with not checks and balances on their actions unless they get caught.

5th Amendment: The practical suspension of our coveted Habeas Corpus with no access to an attorney, the right to be tortured, coerced and intimidated into incriminating yourself .

6th Amendment: Being held indefinitely, without having your right to a trial preserved or acknowledged.

7th Amendment: The Right to trial by jury is replaced with a so-called "military tribunal" if the FedGod sees fit.

8th Amendment: Torture, 'nuff said.

Do I need to go on?


Zundy, perhaps we're not gonna find some common ground here, and I don't particularly think you're interested in the discussion so much as professing your beliefs and your party line, so maybe you and I should cut our losses while we're breaking even? Something to consider.
 
Zundefolge, explain the Democratic line easing up on gun control after so many Democrats lost office (via lost votes) based on their support of the AWB. Sure, the hardliners like Boxer or Kennedy didn't ease up, but now we have a number of pro-gun Democrats speaking out and getting A ratings from the NRA and the GOA).

Politics is a numbers game, if either side loses enough votes, their priorities shift (easing their stance, hardening their line, or dropping the issue altogether for the time being), to claim otherwise is to fail to see the workings of politics for what they are, popularity contests. Which is why the Libertarians don't even need to win to inflict change into the system, they just need to make enough of a showing to scare the powers that be into really reconsidering their stances.


I presume the Red State Kool-Aid is Cherry flavored...I like Cherry. :)
 
I say if enough people voted for them, they'd win an election. You cannot possibly be saying that even if enough people voted Libertarian they still wouldn't win an election, that's illogical.

They're only incapable of winning because to many people are afraid to swim. That's an issue with the people, not the party.

Faulty assumptions. You think that most people in the US are afraid to act for liberty.

I say that most people in the US are not in the least interested in liberty for themsleves and certainly not in allowing liberty to others. That's a fact - plain as day. Realistic people should be preparing their families to ride out the inavitable downfall and rebuild the society, not engage in pointless musings.

If majority of the population were likely to vote libertarian, there would not be any need for libertarians to engage in politics.

miko
 
I say that most people in the US are not in the least interested in liberty for themsleves and certainly not in allowing liberty to others.

I agree with that point, but that wasn't a can of worms I wanted to open here, I already did it in a 'criminals and guns' type thread. ;)
 
The LP has already failed to become anything even remotely approaching mainstream. If it wants to be a viable political party it needs to start at a local level. get a few hundred/thousand candidates elected in each state. dog catcher, alderman, school board, state legislators. These are all doable.

Then you pick the candidates that are the best politicians from among this pool and run them for higher office like governor and us house and senate seats. In 20 or 30 years you might have the infrastructure for a serious run at the white house.

IMO, the LP has exhausted itself running mediocre candidates for president, and neglected what they would do if they actually won. With NO LP members in the house or senate, it would be very difficult to govern.

My personal opinion is they would be better off dissolving the party and becoming a force for liberty in the republican party. Ron Paul did this when he returned to the republican party. There is a small but maybe growing group called the republican liberty coalition that is essentially trying this angle. I hope they succeed.

I have but three things against the LP. First is their total inability to come up with anything approaching a coherent abortion plank. They basically just avoid the issue. The problem with this is that there are going to be troublesome issues that crop up from time to time, and you can't just avoid them.

The second thing is their rather odd stance that we should just pull back to our borders and wait for our enemies to attack us here rather than stopping them elsewhere. this tactic has been tried by many countries in the past and every time it has ultimately resulted in defeat.

The last thing is their desire for completely open borders. This is something I just cannot understand at all. The idea that we can bring in hundreds of millions of aliens and not have it negatively impact the country is just ludicrous, both economically and culturally. Bring in those that want to become Americans. The rest can stay where they are.
 
If you ask most libertarians (small 'l'), they will tell you that the Libertarian party is mostly a bunch of clowns, misguided individuals or frauds. The political activity of such people in most cases contradicts the libertarian philosophy.


The second thing is their rather odd stance that we should just pull back to our borders and wait for our enemies to attack us here rather than stopping them elsewhere.
That’s not true. A libertarian government would not prevent you from taking your rifle, buying a ticket and going to Iraq or wherever else you deem necessary.


The last thing is their desire for completely open borders. This is something I just cannot understand at all.
Hmm… In libertarian society, the borders of your private property would be sacred and inviolate – against Mexicans or anyone else you have not invited – even the government itself.
It is none of your business to dictate to others who they should be allowed to invite on their private property. If you disagree with that, you are opposed to the very idea of libertarianism, and individual right - not just “but three things”.

miko
 
Let's look at this so-called "Big Lie":


4th Amendment: Wiretaps without warrants, federal intrusion into internet traffic, e-mails, library records and whatever else they deem necessary with not checks and balances on their actions unless they get caught.

5th Amendment: The practical suspension of our coveted Habeas Corpus with no access to an attorney, the right to be tortured, coerced and intimidated into incriminating yourself .

6th Amendment: Being held indefinitely, without having your right to a trial preserved or acknowledged.

7th Amendment: The Right to trial by jury is replaced with a so-called "military tribunal" if the FedGod sees fit.

8th Amendment: Torture, 'nuff said.

Do I need to go on?
Take all that and add a disdain for gun rights, property rights, religious freedom and the free market and you have the Democrats ... if you believe they wouldn't have done everything that Bush has done vis a ve the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, etc then you're the one who's drinking the Koolaid.

Zundefolge, explain the Democratic line easing up on gun control after so many Democrats lost office (via lost votes) based on their support of the AWB.
Simple THEY ARE LYING. Democrats never "saw the light" on gun control (if you define seeing the light as realizing that gun control is a bad idea) they just pretended to no longer be rabid supporters of gun control because they know it will just cause people to vote against them. I guarantee you if the Democrats get control of even one body of the legislature they will be back on, full throttle with the gun control.

...the Libertarians don't even need to win to inflict change into the system, they just need to make enough of a showing to scare the powers that be into really reconsidering their stances.
And that is my problem with the LP, they aren't ever going to make enough of a showing. National politics (hell, even local politics) is a blood sport, its WIN or LOSE, no shade of gray in the middle. The only way ANY Libertarian will EVER have a serious impact on the system is when they follow Ron Paul's lead and register as Republicans.

Big lie? The KGB had a term for people that would say such things in the face of what's really going on in the country today, "useful idiots". And no, it doesn't mean that I think you're stupid or that I'm trying to insult you, but you so blindly believe in "the party" that you're ignoring the raging fire in your face.
At the risk of sounding childish; right back at ya!

You seem to be blindliy believing in the LP ... and I would say that the LP and the "Cut and Run Republicans" are the DNC's "useful idiots" in this case.

I don't know what flavor the Libertarian Party Koolaid is, but I bet its spiked with Tequila. :p
 
if you believe they wouldn't have done everything that Bush has done vis a ve the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, etc then you're the one who's drinking the Koolaid.

Actually, they DID that stuff, and furthermore, apparently they passed on wiretap info to campaign contributors who could profit from it. Echelon. Much uglier than listening to people talking to suspected Al Qaeda operatives overseas. Much, much uglier.

Gitmo vs. Waco? I'll take Gitmo in a heartbeat. We actually benefit from what's going on at Gitmo, though frankly I think that most of the guys in there should have been quietly disposed of before they were brought out of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

See, those are real choices, from the real world. Waco, or Gitmo. Nixon's legacy, or Carter's. Reagan's, or Mondale's. Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry, Goldwater or Johnson. Those were real choices. Jesus wasn't running, Thomas Paine wasn't running; Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Ayn Rand WERE NOT RUNNING.

Voting for the Libertarian candidate, much as I like most of them (the ones that don't support gun control anyway, and there ARE some who do because they are all about legalizing pot, not self-defense), is not a real world choice. The candidate with 45% has no influence whatsoever on what happens during the next term. Do you think the candidate with .45% will?

There's more to politics than ideological purity.
 
For the record, I vote the candidate, not the platform. I don't blindly believe in anything, I can see each side of the issue and I'll vote Democrat, Republican or whoever depending on who it is and what their voting record happens to be.

You, on the other hand, say things like:

Simple THEY ARE LYING. Democrats never "saw the light" on gun control (if you define seeing the light as realizing that gun control is a bad idea) they just pretended to no longer be rabid supporters of gun control because they know it will just cause people to vote against them. I guarantee you if the Democrats get control of even one body of the legislature they will be back on, full throttle with the gun control.

...which leads me to believe that you're simply ignorant of the number of pro-gun or mostly pro-gun Democrats (no, not those that simply got quiet about it, those that are actually pro-gun that get A ratings from the NRA and the GOA) that are out there. Perhaps you should put down the Republican playbook and actually see how people on both sides of the fence in all levels of government are voting...you'll either ignore it or be surprised...do you like surprises?

I used to be just like you, until I actually took a look around and realized I didn't know what I thought I knew, because the playbook didn't tell me everything, it only told me everything they wanted me to think.

And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

Cries about religious freedom coming from a Republican, that's rich...I guess religious freedom means free to follow whatever denomination of Christianity you happen to be and hang Christian-related articles of Dogma in state or federally funded buildings. Oh, and the Jewish stuff of course, can't forget the Jews, they're "the other religion".
 
And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

Cries about religious freedom coming from a Republican, that's rich...I guess religious freedom means free to follow whatever denomination of Christianity you happen to be and hang Christian-related articles of Dogma in state or federally funded buildings. Oh, and the Jewish stuff of course, can't forget the Jews, they're "the other religion".
Now you're just spouting DNC talking points.

The Vast majority of Republicans believe in freedom of religion, any religion, whereas much of the DNC (and an alarming number of Libertarians) believe freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion ... in other words, religious people (especially Christians) should be barred from speaking in public lest they make an agnostic uncomfortable ... they believe the official state religion should be atheism. And we should pretend Christianity never existed.

And Democrats are CLEARLY and deeply opposed to property rights ... oh sure you have the right to "own" property (as long as you're really just renting it from the state via confiscatory property taxes) and you can do whatever you want with your property as long as THEY (and the Sierra Club) approve.

...which leads me to believe that you're simply ignorant of the number of pro-gun or mostly pro-gun Democrats
Who will be slienced by their party (and never put in a position where they can effect the battle over gun control) or who will abandon their pro-gun or mostly pro-gun views so they can get in good graces with the party power structure.

Where are all these pro-gun Democrats? What committees are they on? Lots of Democrats start out with pro-gun views and then we see their names on the rolls voting for AWB extensions and .50BMG bans.

No-sir, a pro-gun Democrat will either have to change his tune or the party will end their career.



I doubt we're going to find common ground here because its pretty clear you believe that Republicans are worse for America and the cause of liberty than Democrats (or at least you don't believe the Democrats are any more of a threat)... and anyone who believes that is just to far removed from where I am to find common ground.

I will give you this, if I thought the LP had even a snowball's chance in getting anywhere I'd throw my support behind them 110%
 
And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

"Religious freedom" is a matter of perspective. I'm not big on either party, there.

But if you think the Democrats support private property rights, I want to see some evidence. I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Even the "libertarian" Democrat equivalent of the RLC, the DFC, specifically does not support private property rights. http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

There may be pro-gun Democrats, though Zell Miller won't be in office again. Lieberman just backed down after '94. He's not PRO-gun or anything. Name a pro-gun Democrat with influence. There aren't any from MY state, or many of the other states with electoral votes or big campaign dollars.

I will give you this, if I thought the LP had even a snowball's chance in getting anywhere I'd throw my support behind them 110%

I've thrown my support there 110%, becuse I thought we had a snowball's chance here locally -- so did NPR, BTW -- and we fell flat on our faces. Our candidate, a well-known local figure, got so few votes that I probably knew most of the voters who cast them, at least in passing, in a city of 1.3 million people.

This is not about whether I like the LP. It's about whether I want our government to be more or less palatable IN MY LIFETIME, without me or my family having to die on the barricades for it. Got any kids, NineseveN?
 
I wonder how well Libertarians might do at the polls if the NRA endorsed one from time to time.
In reality I'd say it wouldn't help them at all (and I don't think an NRA endorsement really does anything for GOP candidates either).

I think an NRA endorsement might help a Democrat get a few votes they wouldn't otherwise get (but it might hurt them too).



But the NRA endorsements really aren't meant to help the candidates ... they are meant to help the NRA. They endorse candidates they think will win and they get to claim they endorsed X number of members of the current congress.
 
Correction. There ARE pro-gun Democrats in California, just nowhere near me. The NRA endorses them.

http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=CA

WRT NRA-endorsed Libertarians, Gordon, that's a Catch-22.

Where Libertarians might have a chance, say, in the Mountain West, Republicans are generally very libertarian-leaning, so there's the least benefit.

If we're talking about a Libertarian vs. Bilbray and Busby, well, I'd love to see it. But I don't think we have a chance here, from personal experience, and an NRA endorsement might just get enough people to split the vote and hand the election to the "greater evil", from the libertarian and gun-rights perspectives.

It's not an easy, or comfortable, game.:eek:
 
Oh, so the NRA is basically useless? Never mind then.

Not worthy of your superior, subtle mind, there, Gordon.:p

A radio commercial might influence one to choose Pepsi over Coke at the gas station. However, it probably won't get them to do something they never would, like drink battery acid. That's why lots of money is spent advertising Pepsi and Coke, but none is spent on trying to get people to drink sulfuric acid. That hardly means that advertising is a waste of money.

But surely you knew that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top