Libertarian National Committee Passes Resolution on Gun Rights and Watch Lists

Gun-Rights-AdvocatesAfter being requested by the Libertarian Party of Colorado, through its Regional Representative (this IPR editor, Caryn Ann Harlos), the Libertarian National Committee joined Colorado (and now the Libertarian Party of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana) in passing the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Libertarians affirm that self-defense is an inherent human right;

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party opposes all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition;

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Libertarian Party affirms the right of due process and denies the legitimacy of “victimless crimes”;

WHEREAS, the government has steadily encroached upon these rights by illegitimately regulating and restricting access for firearms and ammunition and may further seek to deprive people who have been convicted of no crime of their inherent right to full self-defense by denying their civil and inherent rights to obtain firearms and ammunition;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee opposes any policy which would deny access to any firearms or ammunition to any person simply for being placed on any government watch or no-fly list and reaffirms its call to repeal and oppose any existing or proposed firearm and ammunition regulations.

Here are the voting details. The Motion was originally brought by Harlos, and co-sponsored by Goldstein, Hayes, Katz, and Vohra.

Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

*Voting “aye”:* Bilyeu, Demarest, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes, Hewitt, Katz, Lark, McKnight, Starchild, Vohra

*Voting “nay”:* Bittner, Marsh, Mattson

With a final vote tally of 12-3, the motion exceeded the 3/4 vote threshold required by Bylaws Article 7.11, so it PASSES.

An amendment to this resolution which would have noted the confusing statements put out by Libertarian candidates specifically asking said candidates to re-affirm the Party’s pro-freedom stances was proposed by Starchild and co-sponsored by Harlos, Vohra, and Demarest. This amendment failed with the following votes:

*Voting “aye”:* Starchild, Harlos, Hayes, Vohra, Lark, Demarest

*Voting “nay”:* Mattson, Bittner, Starr, Katz, Goldstein, McKnight, Bilyeu, Hagan

Jay North, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, calls upon other affiliates to join Colorado in making this stand.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged , on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

104 thoughts on “Libertarian National Committee Passes Resolution on Gun Rights and Watch Lists

  1. Tony From Long Island

    There they go again . . . . alienating more than half of the country with their blinders-on reading of the Second Amendment which clearly says that the Government CAN regulate WHICH ARMS citizens can own. Owning a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution but owning ANY TYPE of firearm is not.

  2. Luchorpan

    Tony, the 2nd Amendment reads:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The 10th Amendment reads:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

  3. Luchorpan

    Anyway, no one follows the Constitution today, and we’ll be given a new one in the not-distant future.

    No one cares what the law is. All anyone cares about is what Soros etc. is paying them to care about.

  4. Andy

    This is nice, but I bet that a lot less people will read this resolution than who heard Johnson/Weld on the campaign trail making contradictory statements on this issue.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    I didn’t notice any contradictory statements, just consistent statements the Private Nuke Caucus went apoplectic about.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    Tony, the 2nd Amendment reads:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Yes, yes it does….. it doesn’t say “bear ANY arms that may be invented in the future.” It also allows REGULATION.

    The 10th Amendment reads:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    Yup. It does. Thankfully there are states with a rational sense of reality and regulate gun ownership.

    So, thanks Mr. Luchorpan for backing me up! Wait. . . . you weren’t backing me up? 🙂

    I love that the LP is the “party of principle” and the Constitution . . . only their narrow reading of it. Thanks for allowing me to own a shoulder-held rocket launcher. That will come in handy if my house is broken into.

  7. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    We aren’t the Party of the Constitution. We are the Party of the Statement of Principles. Where that coincides wonderful. Many members are Constitutionalists. Many are not. Count me among the not.

    As part of the LPCO and part of the authorship of the original CO resolution, we didn’t appeal to the Constitution. That was deliberate. We appealed to inherent rights. Wether anyone agree with that position or not, it is a red herring to argue about the Constitution when the resolution doesn’t appeal to it nor did the original authors intend for it to.

  8. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Andy, I did what I could. And I followed transparency in my own Region. The LPCO Chair requested me as their Regional Representative to bring this motion. I then wrote to all the State Chairs in my Region and gave them opportunity to counsel support or opposition. I also presented this to the members of my Region and asked them for their input.

    Which is how I intend to conduct myself as Regional Representative. I would only go against a majority will in my Region if foundational principle were at risk and I would be willing to put my head on a platter for it.

    When I first made the Motion I didn’t realize it would require 3/4 due to a special Bylaws provision. I was heartened to it did still pass and the wide coalition support. Committee members from across the spectrum joined in and my co-sponsors did as well.

    Yay! I got something passed 🙂 If you have every watched LNC email ballots, this is really satisfying.

  9. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Anthony, your insults are getting old. Look at those who passed it. Hardly a bunch of flaming “private nuke” radicals. But keep your narrative and your pom poms.

    For the record, when CO passed this, it was NOT soley in regard to the problematic issues said by our candidates, which is one reason Starchild had to do an amendment rather than me agreeing to substitute his motion for mine. CO was speaking certainly of our candidates (despite Anthony’s breezy insults, Coloradans, those voters he is so concerned about – were upset and we were having terrible times at Outreach booths – so we – as a state party – which isn’t any out-of-staters’ business frankly- took our own stand so that we could reach our own citizens) but not ONLY ABOUT our candidates, but of the terrible stances of Hillary, Trump, and the current administration.

  10. Tony From Long Island

    Caryn, I found your clarification interesting. However, is it your opinion that citizens have an inherit right to own any type of firearm available? I would disagree and so would likely more than half of the nation. If the party wants to grow, I don’t see why a separate resolution would be necessary. It repels more than it attracts in my opinion.

  11. Bondurant

    “Shall not be infringed” is a pretty clear statement. Penn & Teller have the best explanation of the Second Amendment. If only I could post it, again, at this time. Maybe later when my laptop is functioning again.

  12. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tony, thank you. I am the author of the resolution with the State Chair so I am a pretty authoritative source as to what was meant 🙂

    People have an inherent right to every single means of proportional self-defense. I am not going to get into the private nukes argument. I do not support private nukes as I don’t think it is possible EVER to engage in non-fresh-act-of-aggression proportional self-defense. For that reason I am opposed to any nation having them either.

    A resolution is necessary when there is widespread public confusion. As we saw in Colorado. Which settled down once we passed our resolution and could point to it, and in fact, we are actively targeting outreach to gun rights groups right now, which was doomed prior to this.

    We don’t base rights on popular vote. So who disagrees isn’t a concern to me. What is the libertarian position that honors the individual and rights is all I care about. And for my tenure on the LNC, that is what I will care about to the extent that I can in the full scope of things.

  13. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Colorado’s platform plank (which I wrote/assembed- so once again, an authoritative source on intent):

    Right to Self-Defense
    The only legitimate use of force is reasonable and proportional defense of individual rights–life, liberty, and justly acquired property–against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may seek to be, or agree to be aided by any other individual or group in the exercise of the right to self-defense. Maintaining our belief in the inviolability of the right to keep and bear arms, we reject all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, transport or transfer of any item or tool that could be used for reasonable and proportional self-defense.

  14. Caryn Ann Harlos

    But for those familiar with the current LNC- look at my co-sponsors and who voted. Not exactly the Radical Caucus Convention roll call. Yes, the radials voted with me, but most of my co-sponsors and the ayes are not.

  15. Tony From Long Island

    Bondurant: “shall not be infringed” is not as clear and cut and dry as you say. it says the right to a firearm shall not be infringed. It says nothing about the type, size or capacity. If you want to be an “originalist” and interpret the Constitution as the founders intended, we would only be allowed muskets.

    Yes, I feel strongly about this issue and the fact that Gov. Johnson at least is open to a discussion on the issue is the ONLY reason I am still able to vote for him this November (plus the fact that I live in New York and don’t have to worry about Generalissimo Trump winning the state).

  16. robert capozzi

    cah: People have an inherent right to every single means of proportional self-defense. I am not going to get into the private nukes argument.

    me: Based on my understanding of the word “proportional,” then, the CAH interpretation of the NAP would mean that weapons like machine guns, bazookas, and flame throwers could be used “proportionally,” and so private ownership shall not be infringed, I take it.

    This underscores one of the many limitationa of the NAP for me.

  17. LibertyDave

    Tony From Long Island,

    As I said In another post

    You having an irrational fear of guns does not justify your support to initiate violence against other people for owning one.

    Your stance is the same as someone one who has an irrational fear of dogs calling for a ban of pit bulls because according to them everyone knows that pit bulls are vicious. But once pit bulls are banned the irrational fear will still remain and they will eventually call for the banning of all dogs.

    Your claim that half the people in this country have your irrational fear doesn’t make your fear real, it just means that the government and the media are good at stoking the irrational fears that some people have so they are more vocal.

    Banning or regulating guns will not stop violent people from committing violent acts. it will just make it harder for normal people to be able to protect themselves from violent people.

    If your irrational fear is preventing you from living a normal life there are doctors and medication that can help you more than banning guns ever will. You should get the help you need for your irrational fear of guns before it drives you to commit violence against normal people who don’t have your fears.

  18. George Phillies

    Some Libertarians will find the list of “no” voters to be particularly interesting

    *Voting “nay”:* Bittner, Marsh, Mattson

  19. Tony From Long island

    Tell the families of mass shootings that they have an “irrational” fear of guns.

    Telling me I need medication is just proving you have to stoop to insults rather than defend your position.

    Most mass shootings are USUALLY from legally bought guns done by people with no criminal record. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren’t. Well, according to Tin-foil hat Andy, they are all staged and fake…

    then there is the “initiate violence:” line…..Smugness . . . another reason I left the LP. You should be free to own a fire arm – but not an AR-15 IN MY OPINION. That is not initiating violence against you.

    Go ahead. . . preach about the NAP . . . I’ve heard it for years . . . and the longer I hear it, the less appealing it is.

    So stop with the irrational fear garbage. Your position isn’t CORRECT and neither is MINE. They are opinions.

  20. Andy

    I never said that all shootings are fake. I said that most, or maybe all, of the big, hyped up shooting in recent years were false flags/staged events, and that some of them were flat out hoaxes, and i say this based on a mountain if evidence. These government staged events are being used to push the gun control police state agenda.

  21. steve m

    The LNC putting out a position supporting its platform is a very rational action to take. Very cool Caryn.

    Tony, yes guns are all to often used irrationally and kill far to many people. But as was demonstrated in France just recently.. trucks can be used that way to. My stance is we as a society need to work on what causes people to take these actions rather then trying to make every possible tool that could be used destructively illegal.

  22. robert capozzi

    Strikes me that IF the LNC wants to distance itself from the J/W ticket, it should do so on ALL the plumbline violations, not just one. What is the purpose of reiterating one plank? Calming the NAPster base?

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    Robert,

    Bazooka Brigade?? HOW COME I WASN’T NOTIFIED THAT CAUCUS EXISTS!!! I DEMAND FOR A QUORUM CALL!!!

  24. Bondurant

    @LibertyDave

    Tony from Long Island has acknowledged many times here that he is a Democrat. He’s just carrying the water and spreading their propaganda. Their feelings and fears trump your rights, naturally.

  25. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I certainly didn’t expect that you would. You normally do not vote on many items. I can imagine if it were a tie you might have.

  26. langa

    …the Private Nuke Caucus…

    I think Anthony Dlugos and Robert Capozzi must be the only two members of this caucus, as they are the only two people I have ever heard broach the subject of “private nukes” at all.

  27. langa

    As Caryn points out, this is not the Constitution Party. It’s the Libertarian Party. The Constitution, at one time, supported slavery, but that doesn’t man that support for slavery was a “libertarian” position. In fact, the preeminent libertarian of the day, Lysander Spooner, was well known for his opposition to slavery (and to the Constitution itself). So, even if the Constitution does support gun control (which I am not interested in arguing one way or the other), that in no way means that libertarians should do likewise.

  28. langa

    Tell the families of mass shootings that they have an “irrational” fear of guns.

    Ted Bundy killed dozens of people without ever using a gun; in fact, he typically used common household items. So, tell the families of his victims that banning guns will keep people safe.

    [Yes, I realize this is a bad argument. The only reason I am making it is to demonstrate the absurdity of basing the law on the emotions of grieving family members of victims.]

  29. Thomas Knapp

    “I notice Mr. Redpath is missing. ”

    When he ran for US Senate from Virginia on the LP’s ticket some years ago, he took an anti-gun (pro-“registration”) position. So I’ll interpret his non-voting in the most positive light possible, e.g. he’s corrected himself but doesn’t want to hypocritically admonish others for errors not unlike his own.

    Bob,

    Has it ever occurred to you that there’s a point beyond which nattering “NAP, NAP, NAPsters, NAP” becomes ineffectual because pretty much everyone who’s reading is actually paying attention? The US Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, supported Ms. Harlos’s position, not yours — that is, the Miller ruling says that US citizens must be allowed to own military weaponry without regulation, that the only arms which can be regulated are those which are military useless.

  30. robert capozzi

    tk, it’s a labor of love for me.

    And, actually, I do notice that my check-your-premises approach sometimes seems to inspire others to at least question settled L “law.”

    NAP is an accurate term, near as I can tell, that helps to show that there are NAPster Ls and other Ls who don’t find the NAP the be-all-and-end-all of L thought. That, I submit, is important, as NAPsters TEND to claim that theirs is the One True Right Way, and that others are “sell outs.”

    If some lurkers or even a few dyed-in-the-wool NAPsters really stop for a moment to see how dysfunctional NAPsterism is, I’ve done my job.

    I’ve heard about this Miller decision. Is it the case, then, that citizens can legally possess bazookas and flamethrowers? If not, has anyone challenged laws against bazooka and flamethrower ownership? Seems like a slam-dunk, with Miller as precedent.

    And would you want GJ to answer the question: “Do citizens have the right to possess bazookas?” with an enthusiastic “YES!!!”

    For the record, my counsel would be “No.”

  31. robert capozzi

    To avoid classic TK deflection, let me amend:

    Would you want to see ANY and ALL L candidates to answer YES!!! to the question of private bazooka ownership?

  32. Thomas Knapp

    “Would you want to see ANY and ALL L candidates to answer YES!!! to the question of private bazooka ownership?”

    Absolutely. “YES!!!” is the only answer compatible with the Libertarian Party’s platform, with the US Constitution, with common sense or with any orientation toward humanity other than utter hatred and the desire for its extinction.

  33. robert capozzi

    OK.

    I can assure you that my orientation toward humanity is utter love, and yet my answer differs from yours.

  34. Tony From Long Island

    ANDY bloviated: ” . . . . never said that all shootings are fake. I said that most, or maybe all, of the big, hyped up shooting in recent years were false flags/staged events, and that some of them were flat out hoaxes, and i say this based on a mountain if evidence. . . . ”

    No, not from a mountain of evidence. . . from a delusional mind. . . .

    I respect Mr. Knapp but every time he talks about the party’s platform, I remind myself that he ran for high office for a party with no direction.

    I also realize that “LibertyDave” is not a regular on here (at least I don’t think he is), but his smug and self-righteous language is exactly what drove me from the LP 10 years ago. The utter lack of any flexibility on any issue – the sanctimonious nature of the argument . . . We’ve seen how such inflexibility has crushed our government’s ability to get ANYTHING done during the past 8 – 12 years (about 80% the fault of the Republican “freedom caucus”).

    I got home from work yesterday (I only post on here while at work) thinking that I no longer even wanted to vote for Gov. Johnson. Then I had to remind myself what I did 10 years ago – that a whole group of people can not be judged solely but their most extreme members. Every “party” has an extreme wing. When they actually get what they want, they get crushed (i.e. McGovern, Goldwater . . . ).

    I try to be respectful to everyone on here (except Andy who is a disgrace to humanity) and I feel that I receive respect in return, but what I don’t do (at least I hope I don’t come off that way) is go about it in a sanctimonious way – thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is WRONG. Until 10 years ago, I was a “true believer,” though I wouldn’t have been so far as being a “purist.”

    So, “LibertyDave,” you did a great job angering a very mild-mannered person yesterday. Give yourself a congratulatory self-hug.

  35. Thomas Knapp

    “I respect Mr. Knapp but every time he talks about the party’s platform, I remind myself that he ran for high office for a party with no direction.”

    I’m not sure which time you’re referring to. The Boston Tea Party certainly had direction. In fact, it had more specific direction — not necessarily “better,” just more specific, than the LP:

    “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

    I thought I was fairly clear on my reason for seeking the Reform Party’s VP nomination — I was asked to do so by a friend. If I had been nominated, a main goal of my campaign would have been to give the Reform Party some direction so that it had something to rebuild around — and I would not have campaigned against its platform. I would have campaigned on the parts of its platform I agreed with, avoided discussing the parts I didn’t agree with, and if required to discuss those parts make it clear that my position was not the party’s position and what the party’s position was. My interest in the Reform Party itself was (and is) about the mechanics of how third parties work, what happens when they lose their grip on an ideological orientation, and how that loss can be repaired.

  36. Tony From Long Island

    I know and accept your reason for running. I do find interesting when you say “run on the parts of its platform I agreed with . . . ” Pretty much every candidate does that – including Gary Johnson. That is a perfectly acceptable way to run. No candidate agrees with a party platform 100% – if they do, it says more about the deficiencies of a candidate more than the party.

  37. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    It’s true that most candidates don’t agree 100% with their party’s platform.

    But most candidates also don’t go out and actively run against their party’s platform on multiple issues, especially issues where they did not, while seeking their party’s nomination, make their disagreement with the party’s platform clear.

    Just as an example: Trump and abortion. To the extent that a position on his part can be discerned (which is difficult), that position seems to be pretty far to the pro-choice side of the GOP’s pro-life plank. That was discussed extensively prior to his nomination and he was nominated anyway.

    There was absolutely zero discussion of whether or not Bill Weld supports or opposes due process. For the most part, I think the LP should own its decision instead of blaming the candidate.

    But on that issue, it seems to me that Weld is at fault. Nobody really had any reason to suppose that his position, which he would publicly proclaim, was “fuck the Constitution and fuck people’s due process rights — the state should ruthlessly suppress the rights of anyone whose name winds up on a secret government enemies list.” That’s something he should have MENTIONED while seeking the nomination of a party with exactly the opposite position.

  38. Andy

    Tom, this is an example of why delegates should not vote for candidates who jump in the race too late to go through a proper vetting process prior to the national convention, and especially if they have no background with the Libertarian Party or as a libertarian activist.

    I suppose that Weld did have a background with the Libertarian Party of New York, with him coming into that state affiliate 10 years ago, and successfully conning them into giving him their nomination for Governor, after which he broke his word to them by dropping out of the race, and then immediately leaving the party.

    So other than Weld’s screwjob against the LP of NY, he had zero background in the LP or as a libertarian activist, unless one considers supporting the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, eminent domain, the Obamacare mandate, gun control, and numerous big government politicians to be examples of libertarian activism.

    A lot of delegates voted for Weld because he was supposedly going to bring in big money, yet here we are in late August, and the big money still has not materialized (just as I predicted).

  39. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    Agreed.

    There was plenty to wave us away from Weld that we knew even given his late entry in the race.

    But other stuff is popping up now that would have probably cost him that 1% (50.5-49.5%) margin of victory if there had been time for real opposition research and people interested in doing it.

    Since his nomination, he has referred back to his experience as a US Attorney multiple times, almost always touting a partnership between himself and Rudy Giuliani versus the mafia.Disgusting in itself, and probably the entrance to a dirt mine of epic proportions.

    It wasn’t until after he was nominated that I noticed material out there about his role in helping the Iran-Contra gang cover up their crimes from a Senate investigation.

    Maybe the LP could use a “vetting caucus” that’s willing to do the research and to urge delegates to vote only for candidates who have run a long enough campaign to be thoroughly investigated before the convention.

  40. robert capozzi

    tk: Out of politeness, I excluded brain damage from the possible causes of a perverse position on the issue.

    me: I sure hope you are kidding, I say to the man who advocates advocating the right to bazookas and flamethrowers….

  41. Thomas Knapp

    Rights exist whether they are “advocated” or not.

    There is an unalienable human right to self-defense, which subsumes a right to make, purchase, possess, etc. the means of said self-defense.

    The question isn’t whether or not one should “advocate the right” — which in English, means noticing that something exists instead of ignoring the fact that it exists.

    The question is whether or not the state suppresses that right, and if so how much.

    The demand that everyone ignore something which makes you uncomfortable instead of noticing it only has a limited number of explanations, none of them flattering to the demander.

  42. robert capozzi

    tk: Rights exist whether they are “advocated” or not.

    me: Yes, this seems to be an assumption that NAPsters and some natural-law theorists believe. I agree that rights are a good idea; I have never seen or even perceived a “right,” however.

    Have you?

    tk: The demand that everyone ignore something which makes you uncomfortable instead of noticing it only has a limited number of explanations, none of them flattering to the demander.

    me: When have I suggested that I am “uncomfortable”? I’ve never seen a bazooka or flamethrower, except on TV.

    I guess I would most likely make haste and walk away if I saw one on the street, but I’m just speculating about what my reaction might be.

  43. LibertyDave

    Tony From Long Island

    Your own comments show how irrational your position on guns is.

    You said. “Most mass shootings are USUALLY from legally bought guns done by people with no criminal record.”

    If this is true then what good is regulating guns? In this case regulating guns would only disarm their victims. It won’t stop violent people from committing violence.

    As for your statement on AR-15’s, again your fear is misplaced. Most violent people prefer you use handguns to commit their violence, not assault rifles. They are easier to use and conceal. The fact is if you are shot by an assault rifle the person pulling the trigger will most likely be a government agent like a cop or solder. Like the SWAT team that got the wrong address or the nervous national guard solder that accidentally fires his rifle at a protest causing the rest of the solders to fire. Banning assault rifles won’t stop violent people or government agents.

    As for NAP, I said nothing about NAP. I said your irrational fears could cause you to commit violent acts against innocent people. Why do you think that these people who according to you are law abiding citizens until they go around the bend and commit mass murder do what they did.

    If one post by a stranger on the internet can cause you to become so angry, maybe you have anger management issues that you should get help with. I was not trying to piss you off. I was trying to get you to question your beliefs that are based on irrational fears.

  44. Tony From Long Island

    zzzzzzz yawn . . . to go back to the same tone that some clearly said bothered them. That says more about you than it does about me.

    Your comments about the AR-15 are completely off base.

  45. Tony From Long Island

    The use of the words “irrational fear” are part of the sanctimonious smugness that permeates your soul.

    I lived among incredibly violent people for years while incarcerated and have not one scar on my body to show for it. I had no irrational fear of them or anything else. My position on gun regulation has NOTHING to do with “irrational fear.” It’s simply a firmly held belief I have – just like yours. So get off your high horse and think of a different tone to take where you can have a discussion on an issue without coming off like a stuck up prick.

    Have a great day! 🙂

    While you’re at it (or anyone else for that matter) maybe listen to some of the songs I record for fun. Music can soothe the savage beast, so maybe it can calm the mouth-frothing-libertarian-zealot 🙂
    https://soundcloud.com/user-831858763

  46. George Phillies

    He was more polite than “hoplophobia, the world’s only contagious mental disease”.

  47. Thomas Knapp

    George,

    The hoplophobes and the Islamophobes do indeed tend to test my commitment to the Szaszian take on mental illness.

    The Islamophobes at least have the excuse that they’re afraid of actual people, who are indeed unpredictable and therefore sometimes scary.

    Abject, quivering, crippling fear of lifeless hunks of metal, on the other hand, just doesn’t have any obvious rational explanation.

  48. Tony From Long Island

    Hmm. Mr. Phillies wants to use a pejorative toward me when I have done nothing to personally offend him. Interesting. I thought a person who once sought the presidential nomination of the LP would be above such.

    Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.

    Again….nothing about my stance is IRRATIONAL. I could say your stance is equally IRRATIONAL, but we would both be wrong.

    Also your use of that made up word really has no relation to “politeness” so rethink your quick comebacks to make them more GRAMATICALLY rational. 😛

  49. Tony From Long Island

    Wow, even Mr. Knapp keeps going about IRRATIONAL fear . . .

    ” . . . Abject, quivering, crippling fear of lifeless hunks of metal, on the other hand, just doesn’t have any obvious rational explanation . . . ”

    Even the people who were above such useless and empty arguments apparently are not. I don’t recall doing any “quivering” and have no “crippling fear.” It all really ignores the entire point that whether you, I or anyone approves, government does have the power to limit which weapons citizens may possess.

    I think they should and you think they should not. My (very sound) mental health really has no relation to the issue. I could use a Trumpism and say I am “the most fantastically sane person every to post on this board,” but I won’t.

  50. Thomas Knapp

    ” government does have the power to limit which weapons citizens may possess.”

    The de facto power? To a very limited degree (anyone who wants any non-nuclear weapon badly enough will likely get it).

    The legal power? Nope. The Constitution, and the people who wrote it, were quite clear that they did not intend for any such power to exist, and that what they DID intend was for the populace to be AT LEAST as well-armed as any military on the planet. You don’t have to like that. It’s a fact whether you like it or not.

    And then there’s the moral aspect. I am fully morally entitled to kill anyone who attempts to disarm me or to prevent me from manufacturing or honestly acquiring any weapon I damn well please. It would not be wise to test my attachment to that moral entitlement.

  51. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . The Constitution, and the people who wrote it, were quite clear that they did not intend for any such power to exist, and that what they DID intend was for the populace to be AT LEAST as well-armed as any military on the planet. You don’t have to like that. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. . . . ”

    Sorry. I respectfully disagree. The plain words of the Amendment state that citizens can own a weapon. The type is not mentioned. We could go on back and forth for eternity. You are neither right or wrong. I am neither right or wrong.

    I am not coming at this interpretation of grammar with an 8th grade education. I have a masters degree and I have extensive experience writing winning legal motions in both criminal and civil law. Neither is my interpretation “irrational.” It’s simply my interpretation – and I am not alone (though I am alone on this board! ) Someone back me up 🙂

  52. Tony From Long Island

    Thanks DL. I was / is a working musician. My BA is in music education. Mostly in the past. Just a hobby now. All except three of those songs are not songs I wrote.

  53. Tony From Long Island

    Wow . . did I just say “is a working musician . . . ” You guys do certainly have me worked up today!

  54. Tony From Long Island

    My comment on this topic apparently did not register . . . so here it is again . . .

    Mr. Knapp: ” . . . The Constitution, and the people who wrote it, were quite clear that they did not intend for any such power to exist, and that what they DID intend was for the populace to be AT LEAST as well-armed as any military on the planet. You don’t have to like that. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. . . .”

    I respectfully disagree. The plain words of the Amendment clearly allow citizens to own weapons but nothing is said about the type of weapon. We could go on forever. You are neither right nor wrong. I am neither right nor wrong.

    I do not come at this interpretation from an 8th grade education. I have a masters degree and extensive experience writing winning legal arguments in the areas of both criminal and civil law. We simply interpret the sentence differently, and neither of us is “irrational” in that interpretation.

  55. dL

    well, depeche mode is more to my taste. Your vocal range matches more martin gore than david gahan. I have a bass vocal range so i can nail gahan, but i would embarrass myself trying to cover frankie valli. I mean, most would 🙂

  56. Tony From Long Island

    When I listen to Depeche Mode I get jealous and Martin Gore’s songwriting. In the past I was a straight up tenor – hair band central. But I have a bit of vocal damage that has lowered my range. I was sort of an opera singer in college and sang in some professional choirs, but those days are LONG gone!

    And thank you Mr. Knapp for “liking” one of my songs 🙂 See? Our tension has lowered – at least for now!

  57. Thomas Knapp

    “The plain words of the Amendment clearly allow citizens to own weapons but nothing is said about the type of weapon. ”

    Exactly. Just “shall not be infringed.”

    Infringe, 2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on — Oxford Dictionaries

    “You may carry this weapon but not that weapon” would be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms asserted in the amendment itself. And the authors and ratifiers of that amendment were quite clear that their purpose in proposing and ratifying it was to constitute “the people” as the nation’s on-call militia in case the most powerful army in the world had to be defeated a second time.

    That’s fact and history. It’s not something that’s unclear or in question. I am right and you are wrong. But you do sing better than I do 😀

  58. Tony From Long Island

    I could go back to the point that the word “regulate” is actually IN the Amendment . . . but not today . . . I’ve done my sparring and been knocked down a few times . .,

    Enjoyed your most recent podcast.

  59. Tony From Long Island

    I thought the libertarian philosophy can be summed up as “live your life as you choose unless doing so infringes on the rights of others to do the same.” Not vaccinating your children puts millions of others in danger and that has been proven. So it would seem to me that NOT vaccinating your children would be un-libertarian.

    I was actually thinking the other day what function of government would the purists on this board approve of. Mandating the vaccination of children would seem to me to be one that government does have. I pay particular attention to that pesky “general welfare” thing . .

  60. robert capozzi

    “arms” are simply not defined in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear “arms” depends on what “arms” are.

  61. Jill Pyeatt

    Forcing parents to inject their babies and children with potent drugs which have caused tremendous harm and even death to many children is not a valid function of government. There is NO Libertarian case for mandatory vaccinations.

    I bailed on the Johnson/Weld campaign a few days ago, but after this, I’m really out.

  62. Tony From Long Island

    WOW! Right before I leave work, someone (sorta) takes my side on “arms.”

    An interesting day for sure.

    BTW . . . Johnson’s stance on vaccination has put me BACK on the side of voting for him 🙂

  63. robert capozzi

    Tony, to be clear, I’m not on any side. I am up for an open-minded, adult conversation, leaving dogma at the door.

    Few/no takers thus far.

  64. Just Some Random Guy

    I feel it’s worth pointing out what Johnson actually said.

    “In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine.”

    Note how he says he would prefer it be a local issue but IF the federal government had to decide something he would probably require it. In other words, he’s just saying what he would do if he were forced to decide on the Federal level, but that he didn’t think it should be a Federal issue to begin with.

  65. Brad

    Lots of hurt feelings about everything. The qualifier ‘if the Fed has to step in’ is missed by many. But, apparently, its more important to be ‘pure’ than pragmatic.

  66. Thomas Knapp

    “The qualifier ‘if the Fed has to step in’ is missed by many.”

    Um, no, it’s not missed. “If the Fed has to step in, it should do so in support of authoritarianism and in opposition to freedom” is pretty hard to miss.

  67. B

    Knapp,

    I missed that direct quote from Johnson where he adds “authoritarianism and in opposition to freedom” I’m assuming this is your added exaggeration.

  68. Rebel Alliance

    Just Some Random Guy & Brad,

    No clarification is needed. If people must undergo forcible injections, it’s irrelevant which batch of bureaucrats the mandate comes from. So here’s what a non-libertarian would say:

    “In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine.”

    Now here’s what a real libertarian would say:

    “In my opinion, it’s a good idea to be vaccinated and science has shown the benefits, so I’d strongly encourage everyone to do this. But ultimately it’s up to each individual to weigh the benefits and risks and decide for themselves.”

    See the difference?

  69. Andy

    I don’t think this is a case of Johnson and Weld changing their positions as it is them showing their true colors. They already got what they wanted from us, as in our ballot access, so now they do not really need us anymore, so they no longer have to pretend to support our platform.

  70. Just Some Random Guy

    “In my opinion, it’s a good idea to be vaccinated and science has shown the benefits, so I’d strongly encourage everyone to do this. But ultimately it’s up to each individual to weigh the benefits and risks and decide for themselves.”

    And if the adverse effects were only for them, fine. Someone can choose not to decline medical treatment for cancer and die a horribly painful death as a result. Doesn’t affect me. But not getting vaccinated and potentially spreading disease affects everyone else as well.

    It’s like saying that it’s up to each individual to weigh the benefits and risks of getting behind the wheel while tipsy and decide for themselves, so there should be no restrictions whatsoever on drunk driving.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    JSRG,

    Conversely, if the adverse effects of ordering everyone to be vaccinated were only for the people giving the orders, fine. But it’s the person who actually gets vaccinated who runs the risk of a harmful or fatal reaction, not the person who gave the order.

  72. T Rex

    I want unvaccinated children carrying rocket launchers while they drive cars to their local Heroin Store.

    I’m kidding, moderates. 😀

  73. robert capozzi

    This issue strikes me as oversimplified. There are layers of governmental force involved. Compulsory education. Compulsory taxation for schools.

    There are cross-currents of rights as well. With these first two layers, what about the rights of parents and children to attend schools where reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the other attendees are not transferring communicable diseases?

    Short of Harlos Nonarchy Pods, this one strikes me as too complex to be addressed in soundbites. Were I advising GJ, I’d say that this issue underscores one of the many reasons he supports increased school choice.

  74. langa

    …not getting vaccinated and potentially spreading disease affects everyone else as well.

    Anyone going anywhere in public with any contagious disease risks spreading it. Does that mean the government should forcibly quarantine anyone who has the flu, or strep throat?

  75. robert capozzi

    L: Does that mean the government should forcibly quarantine anyone who has the flu, or strep throat?

    Me: I’d say that would NOT be reasonable.

    There should be a very heavy bias against any government force, from the lessarchist perspective.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Favoring mandatory vaccination but opposing quarantine doesn’t seem to fit your “net reduction of force” model very well.

    While it’s a dizzying calculation problem, I’m going to have to come down on the site of it being “more” force — and less justly applied force — to require 300 million people who aren’t sick to get multiple vaccines, any one of which has a small chance of killing them, than to require a few people who are actually sick and actually contagious to sit home and watch Beverly Hillbillies re-runs for a couple of days instead of running around infecting everyone else.

  77. robert capozzi

    tk, I don’t have a position on the matter. I have not studied the issue closely enough.

    My only position is that I don’t believe it’s wise to challenge the status quo on this issue at this time. I’ve seen no smoking-gun argument that will carry the day.

    There are many, many more clear cases worthy of pushing for at this time.

  78. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    The status quo on vaccinations — at least as of 2015 — is that the federal government doesn’t mandate vaccination and that 47 of the states have medical and/or religious and/or philosophical exemptions to the mandate, while the other 3 have medical exemptions only.

    The “everyone must be vaccinated” position is the position that challenges the status quo.

  79. robert capozzi

    My understanding is that GJ clarified his position, and he’s pretty much with the status quo…leave it to the states, yes?

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I’ve got no idea. While it may not look like it from your perspective, I work hard to ignore Johnson/Weld as much as possible. I only glance when they’re mentioned and only look closer when there seems to be some kind of major stupid afoot.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    My policy is to shoot after asking questions — and to not bother asking questions unless the stupid seems to have been turned up to 11. I don’t support carbon taxes or mandatory vaccines, but I haven’t heard anything about about Johnson’s position on either of those things that really interests me in finding out more or strikes me as likely “Oh, God, what the fuck did the idiot do NOW?” material.

  82. Brad

    Knapp,

    Most people in politics prefer some nuance in opinions – particularly dealing with diverse groups. He prefers to ‘keep it like it is’, but is willing to take a side if only given 2 choices (kind of like those political quizzes that provide no 3rd choices). Vaccines have had an overall positive effect on the general populace so that probably what he based that on. I detected no ‘prevaricating language’ on my end.

    Carry on.

  83. Pingback: Five Minutes Five Issues: Clinton’s Dictators, Party Principles, Speed Control, Planet K, Sailor Sentenced | AdamDick.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *