Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, February 10, 2013

Letter: Run on guns

February 10, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

It has long been my observation that the only measurable result of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Clinton assault weapons ban of 1994 was a huge increase in the number of privately owned guns. After both those laws were introduced — and after Barack Obama was elected president the first time — people went out and bought millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition that they did not really need, and probably would not have bought otherwise. In fact, it is axiomatic among the shooting public that the current popularity of civilian look-alikes of the M-16 and AK-47 can be traced directly to the panic buying spurred by the Clinton assault weapons bill.  

Another such spree is going on right now. Therefore, I was really surprised to see the headline in the Feb. 6 Journal-World stating that gun sales were down 10 percent last month. Then I read the article. The reason sales are down is that every gun dealer in the country has already sold virtually every semiautomatic gun and every round of ammunition they could get their hands on, and the cupboards are bare.

It makes you wonder why intelligent people would continue to advocate more gun control laws. I guess they must have decided that the 300 million guns already out there just aren’t enough.

Comments

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

Exactly. The gun merchants are more than happy to feed into the paranoia and anyone who points this out will just be used by those merchants to say: "the clampdown is around the corner--better hurry!"

Talk about irresponsible. If some of those guns fall into the hands of an idiot who ends up spraying bullets into another crowd, the merchants will just use the opportunity to trigger another flurry of gun sales based on the increased chances that there might be some sort of a clampdown response, even though they are the ones who have greatly increased the probability of that incident happening in the first place. In my book, they are no better than war profiteers or gas stations who hike the price of gas during an emergency.

OK, gun vendors, now go out and use my post as proof that the end is near and spur a few more sales! Paranoia is a marketer's dream, no?

2

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

Show me one ad or one comment made by a gin manufacturer that supports what you're contending. Show me how the gun manufacturers are flaming the fear. They are not, it is coming from people paying attention to what is being said by politicians and drawing their own conclusions.

So again, show me just one ad or comment from a gun manufacturer that is saying buy the guns now because they will be banned.

6

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

They don't have to, because the NRA does that for them. And the NRA isn't just for preaching paranoia from the tallest treetops; it creates a comprehensive support structure for gun sellers through their NRA business alliance that everyone uses to find the nearest dealer, but it also provides those dealers with health insurance, business software and a host of other discounted services.

Separating the gun sellers and manufacturers from the NRA is impossible, and if you don't think that the NRA isn't flaming fear, I don't know what else you could call it.

3

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

So now it isn't the gun manufacturers as you blamed in your original post, it is the NRA doing it on their behalf. Any proof that the NRA is doing on their behalf? Any NRA policy statement, any joint NRA-Gun Manufacturer statement?

You're just parroting CNN and Piers Morgan talking point with no proof.

And what fear is the NRA flaming? Is it fear to state that left unchecked the government will ban your guns? That is not fear, that is reality. The Feinstein legislation, the New York legislation, the Maryland proposed legislation and other jurisdictions are either seeking to ban or have banned guns.

And not just so called assault weapons, but guns traditionally used for self-defense and for hunting. Yes, the Feinstein legislation bans not only semi-auto matic AR 15 type rifles, but rifles used for hunting, shotguns used for hunting and self-defense and pistols used for self-defense.

So is it fear that the government will ban guns? No it is a reality and if left unchecked they would ban all guns.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 7 months ago

Are you really unaware that the NRA is the primary trade group for the firearms industry? Its millions of "members" are just a front.

0

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

Here's what Wayne LaPierre said about Obama during the electoral race in 2012: "“Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term. We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution…When the sun goes down on election day Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat.”

And that has continued. Now LaPierre and the NRA has backed off supporting a national background check program, citing problems with the mental health care system, and how folks need semi-automatic rifles for their survival. It's muddled, paranoid, thinking, and bordering on racism in the NRA ad that shows Obama's girls being protected by armed special service agents while saying that it's not OK for the rest of the country to do the same.

LaPierre is going off the deep end even now, as you can read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/wayne-lapierre-obama-guns_n_2610763.html

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

LOL when you don't have anything meaningful to say throw the race card.

1

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

LOL for me, too, since you are the one who brought it up instead of acknowledging LaPierre's extremist statements such as the needing semi-automatic weapons for survival--give me a break. And why is he and the NRA backing off a national registry? Because they think they can get away with it, even though it would greatly reduce the probability of felons and mentally unstable folks from getting their hands on those guns. A national registry is equivalent to a user's fee or a driver's license test and no reasonable gun owner should be opposed to it because it's there to protect them if their weapon ends up being used in a crime.

0

rtwngr 1 year, 7 months ago

I know. Kind of makes you all warm and fuzzy, too. Remember what the Beatles said, "Happiness is a warm gun."

0

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 7 months ago

Big ""O" IS THE BEST GUN SALES MAN IN THE WHOLE USA

6

bravocharlie 1 year, 7 months ago

I think the point the original writer is making is that the gun and ammunition makers don't need to advertise a blessed thing. This whole business is a headache for them. The president and a couple of well-known Democrat senators have whipped up such a buying frenzy that the manufacturers can't possibly keep up with the demand. Yet if they upgrade and start running three shifts in order to supply what people want now, when the demand inevitably collapses with either the passage or ignominious failure of the proposed legislation, they are stuck with a lot of employees and production capacity that their income will not support.

3

Centerville 1 year, 7 months ago

Bravo, you are correct. The gun people have seen this before. This is a big spike in demand, a new group of people alarmed by the braying of the nannies. The good thing is, those new gun owners are a welcome addition to the customer base of the future. This should start pretty soon, as the Democrats are looking franticly for a new and shiny topic to divert the low-(in)fo crowd. "Look! A sequester!!!!! We're dooooooomed!!!"

2

msezdsit 1 year, 7 months ago

I guess the point of the lte is that there is about to be a lot of illegal guns out there and the trend will begin to change directions.

0

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

". . . if left unchecked they would ban all guns."

And you know that how?

Not even in our Ultra-Secret Anti-Anti-Gun Control Society does anyone advocate banning all guns.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

          We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

          Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns,  New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 7 months ago

Anything more current or relevant than one columnist's opinion nearly 40 years ago?

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

Sure, but the quote illustrates how long this has been going on and how it is a slow incremental process.

Maybe you'd prefer the quote from Jesses Jackson where he just recently called for the ban of all semi-automatic rifles because they can take out trains.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 7 months ago

The fact that you cannot separate any sensible, logical approaches to restricting access to some high-powered killing machines from eliminating ALL guns shows how out-of-touch with reality you are. I'd advise locking yourself in your armory and wait for the gubment to come for your gun collection, even down to your smallest-gauge pistols. They'll be coming for your bible, next, I'm sure.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

Sure attack the person when you can't dispute their points. I can separate sensible approaches from all out bans but that wasn't the point of the post.

A more interesting post would have been to counter with facts to prove me wrong.

But hey, thanks for the chuckle.

0

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

Oh, just like the NRA, which historically has supported many legislative efforts to restrict gun ownership, including a ban on mail order gun sales after Kennedy was assassinated? Take a look at their history and you'll see that the current crop of extremists took over the NRA in the late 70s and has been running as hard as they could to the fringes.

0

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

First of all, he is talking about handguns, not all guns.

This guy retired almost 25 years ago and the quote is from 37 years ago. Using that seems a bit disingenuous.

Yes, my comment was snarky, but the paranoia that we are out to take all your guns is one of the reasons we who support reasonable gun control often think that many of the anti-gun control people are unreasonable, even a little (sometimes a lot) crazy, and not the careful people they make themselves out to be.

The problem now is that we have opened Pandora's Box and there are so many guns out in the public that anybody can get possession of a gun with little effort. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure it's not more and more and more guns.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

I found other more recent quotes but that one laid out the goal and plan quite well It might be disingenuous if I didn't also include the source and date.

The Feinstein bill, if passed will ban all the guns I own. So, maybe "they" don't want to ban all the guns for all the people but they will ban all of the guns for some of the people.

Keep in mind making components necessary to be able to operate a gun illegal effectively bans the gun. There is currently no replacement magazine for my pistol that would comply with Feinstein's legislation so my gun will be inoperable under it.

1

OonlyBonly 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm not worried about you taking my guns - that isn't going to happen. I am however worried about the Government trying to take them as other governments have before. I might, as I'm sure others have, remind you the gun doesn't kill it requires a person to pull the trigger.

0

rtwngr 1 year, 7 months ago

Not yet. Just a little legislation here and a little legislation there. Suddenly there's a knock on the door and a law enforcement officer is standing there stating a national emergency has been declared and he is there to confiscate my weapon for the safety of the general public.

2

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

This comment displays the logical fallacy known as a slippery slope argument, and hence no rational person need give it any consideration.

Here's a good description that explains the problem with the kind of thinking represented in rtwngr's comment:

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery...

Since rtwngr does not, and cannot, factually establish all the intermediary steps between "just a little leglisation here ... and there" and "a knock on the door...," his conclusion is worthless to any reasonable person not wiling to be taken in by fallacious thinking.

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 7 months ago

That's what "they" say and we all know "it can't happen here."

1

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

I can no longer use the computer I bought ten years ago or get parts for the cell phone I bought four years ago. But we can argue about that kind of thing forever and not get anywhere.

  1. Do you agree that some guns/types of ammunition should be illegal?

  2. Do you agree that some people should not be allowed to have guns of any kind?

  3. How do you propose to solve the problem we have with gun murders?

  4. Why do we seem to have a bigger problem than other first world countries who have fewer guns?

  5. Do you think that more and more people arming themselves is going to solve the problem?

  6. What is a reasonable compromise? Or is there any?

Disclaimer: Because of personal experience, I have a great aversion to guns of any kind, but I AM NOT advocating the banning of all guns.

This is in reply to Fred Mertz, but anybody feel free to answer.

0

rtwngr 1 year, 7 months ago

Okay. Well, I'm not in favor of banning free speech. I am in favor of restricting what can be said on a public thoroughfare. I am also in favor of restricting some of the signs that people can hold up at a rally of (fill in cause here). I'm not in favor of restricting all voting rights but I am in favor of an individual being able to demonstrate a grasp of current events before being allowed cast a ballot. Rights do not come from the government. If they did they would not be rights and they could be removed.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 7 months ago

I'd like to hear more about your new all-powerful gov't agency to determine an individual's right to "demonstrate a grasp of current events." and how you propose to derive a metric to assess such ability. Is this another part of a Republican's "small government?" Would Brownback be able to pass such a test? Do tell.

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 7 months ago

1 No, 2 Yes, 3 Find and treat the "disease" not the symptom, 4 We have a much more diverse culture than, basically, all other nations, 5 yes, 6 Keep away from my Second Amendment rights - those rights (not privileges) are there for a reason. For the citizens to protect themselves from invaders and a tyrannical government.

0

grandnanny 1 year, 7 months ago

Wrong - those rights are there because of the need for a well-regulated militia (i.e. National Guard, Army, Navy, etc.). The U.S. did not have a standing army and needed to be able to call up citizens to fight if necessary against an invasion. The Second Amendment no longer applies, but people like you are so afraid so we must keep it. Your vote is much more powerful than your gun - the government has lots more and bigger ones than you will ever have.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

First, your computer is obsolete, but my gun is not. The government wants to make it illegal

1 limiting true military weapons and ammo is reasonable but no to currently available civilian guns and ammo. Compromise - limit civilian guns and ammo to those that civilian law enforcement Sy are necessary for their officers to be on equal footing with criminals. After all civilians deal with the same criminals but without back up.

  1. Absolutely, violent felons, and certain classes of the mentally ill.

  2. Longer sentences for crimes involving violence and guns. Long sentences for anyone illegally possessing a gun. Fund the background check to include the mentally ill, reduce privacy laws so more mentally ill can be included in the database. Recognize we have a mental illness problem and fund programs to help the mentally ill. Find ways to reduce poverty, and promote education

  3. We have more gun crime than some other countries, but some like the UK are more violent. We have more gun crime because we have not banned all guns. We have the 2nd amendment. Other countries don't.

  4. More people arming themselves is not going to solve the problem but if they are law abiding citizens and keep their guns locked up when not in their control it won't hurt.

  5. I think I offered up areas of compromise in the above, but here is another one. Require licensed gun dealers to do background checks and transfers at cost for private sales, but keep it voluntary.

My numbers are correct when I look at it, but they got messed up when posting. So if they are messed up you'll have to figure the response.

0

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

Thank you, fred_mertz, for a reasoned response. I don't agree with everything, but I think the two of us might be able to come to some sort of compromise---each would still have to give up some deeply held convictions. And therein lies the rub---is either side willing to make some compromises? Unfortunately, with all the hysteria and mistrust, it doesn't seem that we can do that on a national level, so one side or the other will prevail and we will be addressing the same issue over and over and over.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

Mistrust is definitely an issue on both sides and many other issues. It is about winning and not doing what is right.

0

Trumbull 1 year, 7 months ago

I really do not have an educated opinion on this issue. But one thing is for sure. I do not like guns. Never have, never will. But I keep my dog out of this fight.

0

bravocharlie 1 year, 7 months ago

At the time Fred Mertz refers to, there weren't any "assault weapons" out there. "Saturday night Specials" was the buzz phrase for the anti gun crowd, and the Gun Control Act of 68 was intended primarily to keep them out of the hands of black people. If you don't believe it, try to find some other mandatory government form than the 4473 that still requires an applicant to report race. There was a short period where it appeared that scoped hunting rifles would be demonized as "sniper weapons." Then the Clinton ban put a million or so ARs and AKs out there, and they became the new fear. Every step of the way, the media helped as much as they could by reporting every single case they could find where the evil-gun-of-right-now was featured. You can wave your hands all you like in support of "reasonable" gun control laws, but don't be surprised when the only consequences of their passage are the unintended ones.

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

You are right about the reason for the 1968 gun control act. The Black Panthers were exercising their right to open carry and it scared people so they tried to disarm them.

0

melott 1 year, 7 months ago

Fred, that's wrong. The Panthers carried 12 gauge shotguns. The 68 handgun act was prompted by all the assassinations and attempts to do so, that were done by handguns. (Not that there weren't a lot by rifles, as well...) No one tried to outlaw shotguns. The Panthers used shotguns so that no one could claim they had "concealed weapons."

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 7 months ago

The point is gun control was simply black control. Lots written on it. Plus I lived it.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Ban and confiscate all military style assault weapons today!!! or ASAP.

Provide a week for owners to turn them in!

Back with federal laws and large fines such as $4,000 per weapon for the first offense

Crush the weapons then recycle the material

Movie Makers/Game Makers Cut the Violent Themes

Now we're on to something.

0

Jason Johnson 1 year, 7 months ago

They could have a million dollar fine and mandatory life in prison, and I'd never give up any of my guns.

Also, Merrill, assault rifles are already regulated. You need to fill out paperwork, pay a $200 tax, in order to own an assault rifle.

1

Enlightenment 1 year, 7 months ago

I think the anti-Obama crowd needs to acknowledge that he had no intentions to alter gun laws until the numerous mass shootings resulted in public pressure for him to act.

Also, i believe that all guns that change ownership (new and used) regardless if the transaction is between a business or two individuals, need to be through a licensed gun dealer entailing a background check and waiting period. To prevent the issue of undocumented gun transfers, create penalties for registered gun owners if their weapons have been used in crimes or are found in the hands of criminals. The crime of the gun's registered owner is selling or allowing a criminal to gain access to a weapon registered in their name.

I believe the penalty needs to be much more severe for illegal possession of a firearm.

2

OonlyBonly 1 year, 7 months ago

You didn't mention that many, if not all, of these rounds are "Hollow Point!" That's right, dum-dum shells.......

0

Katara 1 year, 7 months ago

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/30/chain-email/chain-email-says-homeland-security-purchasing-many/

By spoke to you must mean received an email FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD'd to you by someone who claims to be female.

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 7 months ago

Something I forgot earlier. This is to those whom say, "We don't want to take all your guns.' "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last week effectively bans all semiautomatic rifles, not just the scary-looking, military-style ones. How so? Under her bill, a rifle that accepts a detachable magazine qualifies as an "assault weapon" if it has one or more of six features, including "a pistol grip." The bill defines a "pistol grip" as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip...........Therefore, Korwin says, "any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned."" It's not the only reference to this hidden by the Liberal Propaganda Machine item in the bill... http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/does-feinsteins-assault-weapon-ban-cover

0

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

Kindly identify this "Liberal Propaganda Machine" of which you speak. What outlets, specifically? Which reporter / editor / producer in each outlet, specifically? Who owns the specific news outlets you assert are in this "Liberal Propaganda Machine"?

As Socrates reminds us, the first step toward wisdom is defining your terms. If you can't accurately and factually establish what this "Liberal Propaganda Machine" actually is, and who is part of it, then it's hardly wise to use the phrase. In general, effective writing is not served by using terms the writer cannot define.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

You said it yourself, “legal gun dealers”. If they comply with all the applicable laws and the gun later is unlawfully sold/transferred across the border, how are they complicit?

“How can you trace weapons when there is no firearm database?” That’s easy, since F-Troop told them to sell the guns, they had all the data that was needed to follow the guns into Mexico, they just chose not to.

“I’m a gun owner, but….” Every time I see or hear that I am reminded of those who still say: “I’ve got friends who are black/Jewish/gay, but…”

You are really ruining a good user name.

1

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

If the NRA receives money from arms and munition manufacturers, and the NRA gives money to political candidates like our own Lynn Jenkins, and the money from the manufacturers comes in part from munitions and arms sales (guns, bullets, e.g.), can we with certainty say that money donated to politicians by the NRA isn't connected to the sale of weapons or ammunition responsible in any murder or accidental death?

Under the circumstances, and given the recent move in KS to make sure union members' dues can't be used for political donations, I find it hard to believe any politician would take money from the NRA, since there's no way of knowing whether or not the donation they take is directly related to a murder somewhere in the United States.

That's just bad optics, as they say, if you as a candidate can't with 100% certainty say you received donations that are not tied to companies that make money providing the materials for shootings and murder.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

“can we with certainty say that money donated to politicians by the NRA isn't connected to the sale of weapons or ammunition responsible in any murder or accidental death?”

Could you give us your Socratic definition of “connected”, “responsible” and “accidental”? Because, if you are trying to imply that firearms and ammunition that is sold legally, following the myriad of laws that regulate firearms and ammunition manufactures, are a causal factor in murder and negligent deaths, you truly do not understand what “responsible” means.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

You misread the comment if you believe I implied or stated that the manufacturers are responsible for any deaths.

I am saying that it's bad optics for politicians to take money from groups if that money comes from sales of items used to murder people.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

If you don’t believe that the manufactures are in any way responsible for the deaths that you are speaking of, why does it matter if a politician receives donations from those manufactures?

Should politicians refuse donations from the AFL/CIO or CTW if any union labor was used in the manufacture or transport of an item that was used in a murder?

0

gphawk89 1 year, 7 months ago

"The reason sales are down..."

You're exactly right. I was at Cabela's about two hours ago. They had one very-overpriced AR-type rifle. No high-cap magazines of any caliber. No .223 ammunition. They can't sell what they don't have regardless of the demand.

0

bravocharlie 1 year, 7 months ago

You have to admire the honesty of the poster who comes right out and states that he/she wants to take away all the guns. The 1976 New Yorker quote from Pete Shields is noteworthy, in that it is probably the last honest statement of intent in the national media by gun control proponents. Unfortunately for them, this is a constitutional republic, and the opinion of the many is irrelevant if it is counter to the constitution.

The language most often used by gun control supporters today is "Why are you opposed even to sensible restrictions on guns?" The reason - they know this - is the same reason that women's rights groups are opposed to sensible restrictions on abortion: They know perfectly well that in this context "sensible" really means "Everything we can ram through the legislature under the prevailing political climate." There are already over 20,000 "sensible" gun laws on the statute books of this country, and I defy anyone to provide convincing proof that we are a damned bit safer because of them.

1

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

If you don’t care about the number of guns that that are sold and end up in Mexico then why did you mention it? Probably to try to deflect attention away from the illegal and immoral government actions that you seem to support. Most guns in Mexico come from the Mexican military and police, or are brought in from other central and South American countries. You don’t get automatic weapons and grenades at gun stores in the US. Try actually researching the subject instead of repeating Hillary Clinton’s speeches.

Correct analogy. Try a little better logical argument than “no I’m not, you are”. You should have left that one in third grade. By low info voters do you mean those like you who appear to only be interested in repeating Bloomberg’s and Holder’s blather?

You are correct, guns don’t kill people. Attorney Generals who are criminally negligent kill people.

1

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

I did not say you brought it up, I said you mentioned it. Which you did.

I don’t support the war on (some) drugs, or any of the “wars” we wage against people’s rights. Not sure why you mentioned that, other than trying to create a strawman.

Try reading your own statement: “Since 70% of the weapons traced in Mexico”. The 70% statistic is misleading. Say the Mexican government recovers 1000 guns from a cartel and asks F-Troop to trace only 1% (ten guns). They find that 7 of them originated in the US. Holder and his gang of misfits and gun grabbers then tell everyone: “70% of the guns in Mexican cartel’s hands come from the US, we must put more unconstitutional restrictions on law abiding Americans”. Then sheeple like you get in line, not realizing, or just not caring, that the real number is only 0.7%. I don’t have a “NRA/GOP” position, but you do not know (or choose to ignore) the facts.

Try again, I haven’t watched Fox News in years and am a Constitutional Libertarian. I believe in everyone’s rights, not just the ones that I like. You should try it some time.

1

Peacemaker452 1 year, 7 months ago

I find it very interesting that you question other people’s status as Libertarians.

You initially implied that I “rely on FoxNews and the rigtwing echo chamber” and that I had a “NRA/GOP position”. Now you are hinting around that I am not a Libertarian, just someone who is “interested in liberty from taxes and freedom from a President that’s a member of the Democratic Party.”

So tell me, how is it that a staunch Libertarian such as yourself, who is apparently a self-appointed judge and jury on who is really a libertarian, can support some pretty seriously non-libertarian ideas and programs such as:

Obamacare

Mandatory government education

Higher taxes on the “rich”

Gun control

Before you begin crafting your witty retort, please look back at your comment history. I pulled each one of those from one of your previous posts, without having to twist or contort your words. On the other hand, I did find some comments that showed a definite Libertarian lean but they were difficult to parse out from the hundreds of GOP bashing/Democrat cheerleading comments that you have made.

Why don’t you try shoring up your own house before you come to huff and puff and blow anyone else’s down?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.