Quick Summary Of My Beliefs

So I have the new member area out of the way, I figured I'd give a quick rundown on my political beliefs.

1) As you can see from my new member thread, yes I am pretty much a gun nut. I do believe in background checks, however you can not have background checks on private sales without gun registration, which I do not believe in. Thankfully, I live in Missouri, a free state, where I do not have to register my collection. Places like the UK, Australia, and the State of California have abused registration and forced registered gun owners to turn in their weapons. That is wrong.

2) I fully believe in the right of all consenting adults to get married, so I am very pro-gay marriage.

3) I have not fully accepted the Trans-gender lifestyle in so far as allowing kids of one sex to use the bathroom/locker room of kids of the opposite sex. I'm sorry, but if you have a penis, you should be using the bathroom/locker room for boys; if you have a vagina, you should be using the bathroom/locker room for girls. It's starting to look like this is going to become a national trend though........so I guess I was born in the wrong decade. If I could have, as a teenager, put on a dress and said I felt like a girl and it been that easy to be able to shower with all the teenage girls, I would have been sooooo happy. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but my point is it is ripe for abuse.

4) I'm pro-choice. Not so much so for the same reasons as other pro-choice people; I just feel it is the lesser of two evils. I don't want young teenage girls dying from coat-hanger abortions.

5) I'm against the inheritance tax, but that's because I inherited about 1.5million of a portfolio; so I go with my own there.

6) Corporations are not people......they just aren't.

7) I sometimes get really angry with Atheists when they bring cases against Christian stuff.........but then I realize that it usually isn't personal, it's all about separation of Church and State.

At the end of the day I vote Republican because of the 2nd Amendment. You bring me a Democratic candidate that will not pursue an Assault Weapon Ban and will appoint justices that will vote with the Heller and MacDonald 5, and I'll vote Democratic all day long.

 

Oh, I guess I should add to this that I am for legalizing drugs.....all drugs. And it really really pains me to say that, as I think meth is the worst drug a person could possibly do and nothing good can come of it. However, if I say you can legalize this drug but not that drug, I'd be having the same view point as anti-gun people that say you can own this gun but not this one with the black stock. I refuse to be like them, so.........all drugs should be legalized. As well as prostitution; why we make illegal to sell something you can give away is just bizarre.

 

Being a single-issue voter, makes it certain that you will vote against what is best for the country as a whole. It is the same for those who vote only for candidates that oppose abortion, especially when these voters live below the poverty level.

The Republican economic system that funnels wealth upward will work well for you, until it begins taking from you to redistribute your wealth upward. This is what Reaganomics has been doing for the middle class for decades.

The unemployment, food stamp, welfare, homeless, and other problems related to keeping the corporate bottom line growing, are the fault of the parasitic capitalism practiced in this country, that was established by Reagan and the Republican Party. It limits opportunity to the very rich, and you like most devoted Republican voters, despite your own belief that your $1.5 million inheritance makes you a part of that very privileged segment of society that rules our government, are nothing more than another small fry in the middle class that will eventually lose.

But hold tight to your assault rifle, given the economic policies of this country, it might be all you have left very soon.

 

The situation with firearms control laws in Australia may not be as you've been led to believe but I'll not pursue it here, plenty of threads on the issue!

 

I have no illusions on where I stand financially. I have to watch what I spend to make sure I do not go into the principle that gives me dividends. That's not to say that I don't understand that I am part of a different class of people because I do not have to work, but I for darned sure can't just spend like a drunken sailor.

 

People were forced to turn in their guns (even though they were paid for them), yes? That is criminal. If I own property......it's mine to sell or keep as I please. My gun collection is worth about 40k......it is not for sale. I really love the term "gun buy-backs"........the government did not own those guns first; so they are not buying them back.

 

Soo...you're a libertarian? Welcome.

 

I do completely agree about voting against the country as a whole for being a single issue voter. That is why I want a Democratic President that will be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-corporation.........and PRO-GUN. I don't know if we will ever see one; but that is what I hope.

 

Libertarianism is a fairy tale told by those unable to cope with the reality of the human race. None of their philosophy can work when the many variables of society are put into play, and the more the human factor invades their idealized system, the faster it fails.

 

While I understand where you are coming from, you create hypocritical situations. Let me give you an example. There are "liberals" who complain about parents invading the privacy of their children and how they punish them. These liberals do not want parents listening in on their kids phone conversations or going through their bedrooms or taking away things that have been given as gifts for punishment.........all in the name of "children's rights". These same "liberals", that hold this believe of children's rights, also turn around and complain about parents of school shooters not being more active in their children's lives. So which is it? Do you understand the hypocrisy?

 

Hilarity at its finest. Libertarianism is the only ideological that can be applied universally, and always work.

 

What Brtbluwo means, is that some people have an urge, which they can not control, to control people. Example: Mayor Bloomberg. He is the ultimate example of an authoritarian as far as the United States is concerned. If he isn't screwing with your personal life and telling you how to live (no big sodas for you), he isn't happy.

 

There will never be any laws passed at the federal level that interfere with gun ownership. But it makes for good political theater when something like Columbine, Colorado or Newtown, Connecticut. happens. Both the Republicans and the Democrats put on a good show for their constituents, but in reality, there was never a chance for any change in current federal gun laws.

With a few states like Texas where anything is possible when it comes to buying gun, strict state laws in other states are worthless. So, self-described "gun nuts" like yourself are in no danger of losing your Second Amendment right to overthrow the government when you are displeased. (Before you jump to disagree, on these message boards conservative and neoconservative Second Amendment advocates have stated many times that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the right to bear arms with the intent it be used to rebel against the very government they were establishing. Of course the righties are wrong, but no one can convince them of this.)

 

I agree on that; they did. That hasn't changed in meaning......but most likely in task. Take a look at my collection in my new member thread......it's nice. But I'm pretty sure I can't take on a SWAT team. Nor would I want to. Honestly.......I like owning what I own just for the "(*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles". It's fun to go to the range and shoot those guns. I enjoy it. And yes, I feel if it is ok if a few people per year have to die in order for me to have that right. However, the anti-gun side is no different in collateral damage. The difference is they are ok with a few people dying because they did not have access to a gun. Neither side is holier than thou.

 

I have asked Libertarians to explain the advantages of their political philosophy many times. I am still waiting for an answer. The claims that it is idyllic is the best they can offer. Do you want to take a shot?

If so, it is certain you will leave out many details. So be ready with additional information to describe just how libertarianism would handle various scenarios for which the ideology has not prepared. There are many.

 

There are good reasons gun control laws were passed, but over the decades those reasons have been forgotten by the conservatives and neoconservatives. The people of this nation need to be reminded why citizens packing heat are a danger to everyone. This reminder is coming in the form of "right to carry laws". It made headlines last week that this will soon take place in Chicago.

It will soon prove that untrained civilians taking the law into their own hands, or responding to sudden gunfire in their immediate area, will take more lives than are saved. With all of the extra firepower on the streets, no one will know exactly who started the shooting, or who the bad guy is. So anyone flashing a gun will be considered a legitimate target. This is by both police and other citizen avengers.

Despite the belief by conservatives and neoconservatives that they are all Rambo, the sad truth is more innocent Americans are going to die as the result of right to carry laws. Unfortunately, it requires this collateral damage to drive the truth home.

 

Brblutwo, there is only one way I can accept your point of view without....scorn.

If you are not one of the first ones to whine about the police when they shoot someone they shouldn't or tase someone they shouldn't or handcuff a 5 year old. If you complain about police abuses........and then turn around and say they should have better guns than civilians, you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. I am new here, so I don't know your post history; so you'll have to tell me.

 

Libertarians are the good at pointing out what is wrong and evil. Has much to do with the none aggression principle. There is nothing wrong to me saying "I don't know". On many subjects I just don't know, but I will sure tell ya what solutions are dead wrong. Rational humility is a quality I value. We do not want to create a utopia but instead an libertopia where the none aggression principle is the norm. Imagine a society that was lacking an organized monopoly of coercion and the social norm of none aggression would strengthen and govern much of the conduct. 90% of all disputes would be settled without law (Ellickson's study, Order Without Law).

To me the advantages are apparent.

 

Police overreaction is a fact of life. The personality and aggressive nature required to be a law enforcement officer makes this inevitable. This is no different than the aggressive driver that loses control during road rage.

The only difference, these are men and women trained to maintain self-control. Trained in situational awareness. However, adrenalin is funny stuff, and as a given incident escalates so does the chance for an officer to lose control.

As far as tasers, they can stop this escalation, and should be used rather than a nightstick. It is a much safer method for both the officer and the suspect. Police beatings are a result of their all too human overreaction due to the loss of their own self control. This is neither a complaint nor a justification, which seems to be what you are expecting. As far as handcuffing a five-year-old, perhaps this will be enough to scare the kid and stop him(her) from being a complete pain in the a$$ as so many are today.

Wrong is always wrong, and right is always right, but selective application of either is what makes a hypocrite.

If you are new to the message board concept, you will learn quickly that the conservatives and the neoconservatives regularly spout this selective use of right and wrong. However, if you are simply new to this board, you will find it to be no different that any other. An example, is their selective use of the Patriot Act to justify government spying on law abiding citizens. When the Bush/Cheney administration began the practice, the right wing supported it as making us safe from terrorism. But with Obama continuing of the program, these same conservatives and neoconservatives condemned it. People of reason know it was wrong when Bush/Cheney were doing it, and it is still wrong with Obama in the White House. Does this make Edward Snowden a hero, or a traitor?


The same selectivity can be applied to the abortion issue, is it right to save a life incapable of living outside the womb, and then turn around and execute a person convicted of murder? When the conviction is questionable? (And yes, it’s been proven that innocent people have been executed. In the same vein, pregnant women have died being denied an abortion.)

Civil discussions are rare on message boards, but are possible without extremism from either side. Sadly, extremism is subjective.

 

As a percentage, what is the ratio of non-aggressive Americans to those who are aggressive? A ball park estimate will do.

 

I don't know !

but seriously, I think aggression is the norm. Percent very high

 

That is just one of the many variables that make libertarianism unworkable. Can you think of more?

 

just thought of example.

Suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, we provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children.

Does society ask for the money or steal it? We steal it. Because aggression is the norm. My point is freedom is not the libertarian goal but instead morality. If social morality was different you would not have the above problem.

I don't mean to highjack the thread and I am drinking.......

 

Yeah, but it doesn't allow him to own you, and it doesn't allow him to express his racist views through legislation which keeps minorities poor and dependent. That's why libertarianism is a fairy tale, it's far too free for that misanthropic statist.

 

This is not highjacking the thread, it merely expands it.

It is this unwillingness of libertarianism to tax its citizens that permits the aggressive the freedom to prey upon the non-aggressive. It is much the same as the situation developing in this country today. Government indifference to its citizens, as is the desire libertarians, doom that system to failure.