why vote lp?

[bishop]

i'd love to see an end to israeli welfare. of course, where do you start with that one? if i'm not mistaken, congress passed a resolution a couple months after 9/11 voicing near unanimous support for israel.

cutting funding for israel is something that's apparently easier said than done.


*edi* how will arming people for self-defense solve anything? i can see it now - some trigger happy moron shooting some arabs up on the suspicion that they're up to no good.

[The Dunedan]

Bishop:
Check out the crime rate in Kenneshaw, GA: 2%. Not reduced -by- 2%, the -total- is 2%. Kenneshaw law requires that every house have a gun in it: the local Top Cop has bought guns for houses that couldn't afford them out of his own pocket. They havn't had a single burgalary or home-invasion in 6 years.
Secondly: If someone was in a frame of mind to go about shooting random Arabs, don't you think such a criminally-inclined person would simply do so, ala-Bufurd Furrow, rather than obey any laws you or I might put in his way? I always find it funny when:
A: Anti-gun people posit that a relaxation of some random victim-disarmament law will lead to a bloodbath ( which it never does ).
B: People seem to think that a mere law, a scrap of paper, would stop a murderer. "gee, I don't think I'll kill those Arabs, that would be illegal."

[Compugasm]

[bishop]

there are also lots of guns in the bronx. and, violent crime is nice and high there.

Secondly: If someone was in a frame of mind to go about shooting random Arabs, don't you think such a criminally-inclined person would simply do so, ala-Bufurd Furrow, rather than obey any laws you or I might put in his way?

accidents happen. accidents with guns are more likely to happen when you have more people trotting around with guns.


is the world safer if everyone has nukes, or if nobody has nukes? and, if we accept reality that some countries will always possess nukes, is it a good idea to keep the nukes out of the hands of dangerous countries?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by The Dunedan, Bishop: Check out the crime rate in Kenneshaw, GA: 2%. Not reduced -by- 2%, the -total- is 2%. Kenneshaw law requires that every house have a gun in it: the local Top Cop has bought guns for houses that couldn't afford them out of his own pocket. They havn't had a single burgalary or home-invasion in 6 years. Secondly: If someone was in a frame of mind to go about shooting random Arabs, don't you think such a criminally-inclined person would simply do so, ala-Bufurd Furrow, rather than obey any laws you or I might put in his way? I always find it funny when: A: Anti-gun people posit that a relaxation of some random victim-disarmament law will lead to a bloodbath ( which it never does ). B: People seem to think that a mere law, a scrap of paper, would stop a murderer. "gee, I don't think I'll kill those Arabs, that would be illegal."

I have always believed an armed populace will be the only logical deterrent to crime. Simply put, if you are pretty sure you'll be shot if you invade a home and harm or rob someone you are less likely to commit such an act.

But I've never heard of MANDATORY gun ownership. What is someone in town doesn't believe in guns and refuses to arm himself?

[The Dunedan]

Bishop:
All the guns in the Bronx are illegally owned. ALL of them, or near enough as makes no difference. That's why the crime rate is so high: not only are the law-abiding disarmed, but acquiring a gun for self-defense is, in itself, a crime!

[bishop]

who would be limited from owning a gun under the lp's platform?

criminals? mentally ill people? and, what sorts of weapons would they be allowed to own?

[The Dunedan]

Any free person ( person not incarcerated or committed ) would be free to own any man-portable firearm and some crew-served weapons, IMO.
However, any crime would have MUCH more severe consequences, as a result. IOW: A Life sentance means you DIE in jail. Violent crimes would carry double-digit sentances, nonviolent crimes of theft or fraud high-single/low-double digits. I'm talking HARD time.
A criminal should only be released from prison after he is no longer a threat: ie dead, or TOTALLY rehabilitated. Jean Valjean should be able to vote, carry any gun he wants, live where he likes, etc etc, without the good Inspector Javert hassling him. Hannibal Lecter, on the other hand, should die in a cage. Period.

[bishop]

whether or not someone's rehabilitated can only be determined once the individual is out of prison. at that time, according to what you've said, it seems like that person would be allowed to buy a gun?

even if the person committed murder? or, would everyone convicted of murder simply get life/death?

and for people like manic depressives? or what about people who use drugs, like pcp? (which the lp thinks should be made legal)

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by bishop, whether or not someone's rehabilitated can only be determined once the individual is out of prison. at that time, according to what you've said, it seems like that person would be allowed to buy a gun? even if the person committed murder? or, would everyone convicted of murder simply get life/death? and for people like manic depressives? or what about people who use drugs, like pcp? (which the lp thinks should be made legal)

Good questions, and right now are difficult at best to answer. Difficult because these things are not likely to be tried out by TPTB and the L.P.'s relative inexperience and lack of the power to TRY these things out.

What I am seeing, however is an apparent desire to see the Libertarian Party come up with all answers to all people. It looks as if we are expecting perfection from a party with no practical experience in making these ideas work and ironing out the glitches as they go along. At the same time we continue to elect two parties with DEMONSTRATED inability to solve any of our problems. It makes no sense to me, but then again since I am holding my nose and voting for Kerry I guess I should just shut up.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by bishop, whether or not someone's rehabilitated can only be determined once the individual is out of prison. at that time, according to what you've said, it seems like that person would be allowed to buy a gun? even if the person committed murder? or, would everyone convicted of murder simply get life/death? and for people like manic depressives? or what about people who use drugs, like pcp? (which the lp thinks should be made legal)

Alright, lets go to drugs...yeah we want pcp (and others) to be legal. Why? Because if they would legalize it, the market would shift from gangsters to legitimate parmacutical chains, and that would reduce violent crime, as well as prison crowding becuase of fewer people convicted of both violent and unviolent crime. Also, instead of blowing away a whole bunch of money every year fighting a losing battle (that prevents nobody who really wants to get high from doing so, but does ruin plenty of lives and get plenty of people killed), we would take in a whole bunch of tax revenue to spend more usefully.

Also, legalizing meth would shut down a lot of neo facist orgs that finance their shit by selling meth.

Legalized drugs, guns, prostitution and gambling would reduce gangsters to a bunch of racketeers. A lot of gangs that lack the inclination to run protection rackets will be shut down altogether.

By getting into people's vices, all we do is create criminals. Guess what, prohibition MADE Al Capone. Drug prohibition is the only reason gang crime is what it is today.

Drugs are illegal, too bad none of the pot heads seem to notice...

[bishop]

behind my questions lies my criticism of the lp.. i'm not pro-gun, which is one of the lp's core tennant. the questions extend outside of the specificity of guns because, imo, gun laws do affect (and are influenced by) other factors - like poverty, mental illness, etc..

in general this is the reason why i can't in good conscience support badnarik - because i've found too many holes in his arguments for my own comfort. at least when i look at kerry's proposals, they're much more comprehensive and have clearly paid attention to the little nuances that exist within each issue.

if i were to find some candidate emerge from the cato institute, that person would most likely win my support. while the two major parties are clearly corrupt, and often make matters worse, they haven't been complete disasters. welfare reform was good, balanced budgets were good, acting to stop genocide in the balkans was good, etc... if the lp were to win power, i highly doubt that they'd really be able to solve problems as they would suggest. from everything that i've learned, washington is a world unto itself that defies normal logic.