For Immediate Release
ALEXANDRIA — The Libertarian Party opposes the No Fly List, “no buy” lists, and other such lists where the government infringes on a person’s rights without due process of law.
In recent years, the federal government has used “the war on terror” as an excuse to encroach on our most fundamental human rights.
Warrant-less wiretapping, detaining prisoners for years without trials in Guantanamo Bay, “no fly” lists that are compiled secretly and without due process, and similar “no buy” lists all violate the human rights of Americans and non-Americans alike.
Our founders would be horrified and every American should be too.
Our country claims to stand as a beacon for “liberty and justice for all” and yet there is no liberty and no justice in these breaches of our rights.
The presumptive Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees have stated their support for many of these programs.
In contrast, Libertarian National Committee chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “There shouldn’t be a no-fly list, terrorist watch list, or any other secret government list you can be put on without due process of law.” Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President agrees.
In recent days, Congress has been debating a “No Fly No Buy” bill which would prevent people listed on the No Fly list from buying firearms.
The Libertarian Party urges Congress to vote down any bill, such as this one, that infringes upon rights without due process. Due process is one of the most critical elements of our justice system, designed to protect our rights. It must be respected and upheld, no matter the circumstances.
Currently, the No Fly List is so casual that Americans are at risk of being denied access to commercial travel because of clerical errors. This is a terrible injustice. The idea of using such a flawed No Fly List as a guide for restricting other rights, such as gun ownership, is appalling.
If the government has evidence egregious enough that a person should be prevented from boarding a plane, the government needs to take this evidence to court and have a fair and open hearing to determine whether the person in question should have his/her rights denied. If someone is found to be plotting violence, they should be arrested immediately and prosecuted.
The Libertarian Party is the only political party in America devoted to protecting all rights, of all human beings, all the time. The Libertarian Party also strongly condemns the use of force except in self defense.
(From LP.org)
Julie Borowski: Don’t Ban Guns From People On No-Fly List
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbVmKfBeBms
GD, glad we agree on the overkill.
I’ve never heard anyone say what you do, but I do agree that many put far too much faith in government’s ability to solve social ills, and that governments very often makes the ills worse.
I didn’t hear Jon say that. I don’t agree with him, but I’d like to know how you read it that way.
Robert Capozzi: “Tony, I let my membership lapse less because of vociferous CTists in the LP but more because it dawned on me that the premise — to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state (which doesn’t exist) — is one I don’t share.”
Robert, Robert: sure, ‘cult of the omnipotent state’ sounds like rhetorical overkill, but I’ve heard from plenty of people who believe that, if you just get the right people in power, government can do anything.
That woman at Wednesday’s town hall, who’s son has become a vegetable from the War on Drugs and is *still* demanding that the “persons in power … get rid of all the drugs” was a good example. But Jon here at the top of the thread, demanding that they get rid of all the guns, comes a pretty close second.
And iwhat of the class next door using a different dictionary?
“By whose authority do words have meanings? Are you saying we’re ruled by dictionary publishers?!!! And what if the dictionary publishers disagree?”
I decide. It’s by my authority. I choose the dictionaries we use in class, grade your papers and teach you the language rules you live by.
You’re welcome.
L: By whose “authority” does 2+2=4? Or are you saying we’re “ruled” by math teachers? Stupid shit like this is why no one takes you seriously.
me: The widely accepted conventions of mathematics have been handed down for generations. Math teachers maintain that tradition.
Math is different than language, which — if you’ve not noticed — if FAR more bendable and changing than basic math. Surely, surely you’ve noticed. IOW, you present a very misleading comparison.
As to whether “no one” takes me seriously — bummer, if true. You may not, although you do seem to respond to me pretty seriously.
L: Here’s an experiment for you: If you really believe words have no meanings, then go up to the biggest black guy you can find, and call him a “nigger” — then, see if he accepts your caveat that “nigger” means “cool guy”! See how that goes.
me: The N-word is pretty universally known as a pejorative EXCEPT when an African-American calls another African-American an N. Are you trying to prove MY point?! 😉
L: The platform should be changed. We’re the Libertarian Party, not the Constitution Party.
me: Yes, agreed on both counts.
L: No one is “deterred” by mere possession, but rather, by threat of actual use. And threatening aggression is itself a form of aggression.
me: I find this a simplistic analysis, and note that you dodge my question: As a High Holy Wo/Man of NAPsterism, should all Good and Virtuous NAPsters take the position that the US should unilaterally disarm its nuclear stockpile?
By whose authority do words have meanings?
By whose “authority” does 2+2=4? Or are you saying we’re “ruled” by math teachers?
Stupid shit like this is why no one takes you seriously. Here’s an experiment for you: If you really believe words have no meanings, then go up to the biggest black guy you can find, and call him a “nigger” — then, see if he accepts your caveat that “nigger” means “cool guy”! See how that goes.
The LP’s platform refers 2A.
The platform should be changed. We’re the Libertarian Party, not the Constitution Party.
Langa, you avoid the issue of nuke possession as a form of defense. And that no nation that possesses a nuke has been overrun by another nation, iirc.
No one is “deterred” by mere possession, but rather, by threat of actual use. And threatening aggression is itself a form of aggression.
btw, TK, here’s the new GJ ad on RTKBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTQn3chyp9c
tk: saying that they are not interested in getting rid of such laws of that type as already exist.
me: Not interested in pursuing this in the next 4 years is a purge-worthy plumbline violation in your mind, TK?
btw 2, one of them calls for an end to the endless war in the Middle East.
btw, GJ’s site has been reworked, and they are populating it with TV ads on a range of topics.
“We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.”
That’s the LP platform, as RC points out.
Johnson/Weld are campaigning in direct opposition to it, saying that they are not interested in getting rid of such laws of that type as already exist.
Article 14, Section 5 of the bylaws is intended for exactly such situations as this. Why is the LNC failing to act in defense of the party?
more….
Langa, you avoid the issue of nuke possession as a form of defense. And that no nation that possesses a nuke has been overrun by another nation, iirc.
In this sense, they are very effective weapons, don’t you agree?
This all begins to show the limitations of NAPsterism. Apparently, since nukes are inherently aggressive, the NAPster should advocate that the US unilaterally disarm DESPITE THE RISKS. Yes?
L: “Authority” has nothing to do with it. Words have meanings.
me: LOL! You blatantly contradict yourself in 2 sentences…nicely done. 😉
By whose authority do words have meanings? Are you saying we’re ruled by dictionary publishers?!!! And what if the dictionary publishers disagree?
L: So what? I don’t care what the Constitution says. I’m a libertarian, not a Constitutional fetishist.
me: Well, that’s funny. The LP’s platform refers 2A. It says:
1.9 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the >>>>>Second Amendment<<<<< to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
Is it your contention that you and I “understand” the English language and they do not? If so, what makes YOU such an authority to say so?
“Authority” has nothing to do with it. Words have meanings. I suggest you learn to accept that, unless you enjoy looking like a navel-gazing, nihilist nutcase.
Of course, 2A says nothing about “defensive use.”
So what? I don’t care what the Constitution says. I’m a libertarian, not a Constitutional fetishist.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
I just read the document and I don’t see any plan to “to kill the American people by machine-gunning them on the streets of Miami, destroying cruise ships and crashing airplanes into buildings”.
There is an obvious attempt to simulate killing of civilians and potentially putting military personnel at risk as well as “friendly” Cubans staging attacks. An interesting read to be sure.
Thanks, Roger.
Unfortunately, I also understand all I need to know about national security, which is that any of us Americans will be sacrificed if the cause is important enough to the Powers That Be.
And I NEVER give them the benefit of a doubt.
Everything you need to know about national security and background checks was laid out in the Operation Northwoods documents (signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1961; released publicly in about 1998 or so).
The Operation Northwoods documents described a plot to kill the American people by machine-gunning them on the streets of Miami, destroying cruise ships and crashing airplanes into buildings — in order to get Americans to support a war with Cuba.
The people who held the keys to the highest level filing cabinets of the national security state were plotting to murder the American people. All 12 of the Joint Chiefs signed or agreed to the murder plan. Any of them would have passed any background check, and indeed, they held the highest security clearances in the federal government.
(The only thing that stopped them was JFK, who refused to sign off on the “Operation.” He lived about a year after his refusal.)
This is all anyone needs to know about national security.
L: Anyone who understands the English language. WMDs necessarily result in “collateral damage” (i.e. murder). There’s nothing “defensive” about that.
me: Depends on how you want to look at use. At the moment, no nation that possesses a nuke has been overrun by another nation, iirc. Possession is a form of use, at least for many. Some feel that the US’s use of them WERE in the name of defense. (I don’t happen to agree with them on that one.) Is it your contention that you and I “understand” the English language and they do not? If so, what makes YOU such an authority to say so?
Of course, 2A says nothing about “defensive use.” You are simply making up a definition that suits you, perhaps because you found Block’s paper on the matter persuasive.
Others may not be enlightened as you are! In fact, I’m almost SURE OF IT!!!
L: You can “state” whatever bullshit you want. That doesn’t make it true. For example, I could “state” that I have been chosen by God to rule over Earth, and everyone else is to be my slave. Does that make it so?
me: Ah, truth, my FAVORITE subject. Have you ever disagreed with what the truth was with someone you otherwise agreed with on just about everything? I suspect we all have, including your pseudonymous self. What’s the truth, then, on that issue? What you say? What s/he says?
L, who defines what is “defensive use”?
Anyone who understands the English language. WMDs necessarily result in “collateral damage” (i.e. murder). There’s nothing “defensive” about that.
IOW, a possessor of WMD could flatly state: I possess this for defensive purposes.
You can “state” whatever bullshit you want. That doesn’t make it true. For example, I could “state” that I have been chosen by God to rule over Earth, and everyone else is to be my slave. Does that make it so?
L, who defines what is “defensive use”? It implies authority, a concept that nonarchists reject, as I understand it.
IOW, a possessor of WMD could flatly state: I possess this for defensive purposes. Who are YOU to tell me otherwise?
I hate to say it, but there are Ls who believe that anyone can possess anything the government does, including machine guns and WMD. Thankfully, they are few and they generally don’t make their position known too much.
Typical RC garbage, trying to conflate machine guns (which can be used defensively) with WMDs (which, by definition, can’t). Of course, the true libertarian position is that anyone should be allowed to own machine guns, while no one (including governments) should be allowed to possess WMDs.
Possession of fully automatic weapons isn’t banned outright. They’re just really hard to get. They all had to be registered in 1934. Import and manufacture for private sale was prohibited in 1986. But you can still legally possess a fully automatic weapon that was manufactured prior to 1986, if you can find one to buy and can jump through the government hoops.
Who said that utopia was an option?
Bond: Even the ACLU agrees with the LP on this issue.
me: To be clear, me too, on No Fly, No Buy. A travesty of due process.
Even the ACLU agrees with the LP on this issue.
The No Fly List has no check & balance. Anyone can be added for any reason. It’s all about the whims bureaucrats. No court order or evidence is needed. One can be added without being notified or given a reason. Such a list should never infringe on constitutional rights.
Considering the list Janet N. made a few years back claiming returning vets and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers were possible terrorists, it’s plain to see that such a list can grow with ease.
Not to mention people that are added by mistake like the journalists and senators that have appeared on the list. I don’t have much sympathy for the latter but it’s obvious the list is misused.
My objection begins with the no-fly lists themselves. For known, non-citizen, foreign terrorists, fine if handled properly. For citizens there should be some criminal charge, due process and conviction before anyone can be put on such a list.
Again, Andy, have you seen ANY of my other posts? Only ones in response to your silliness are even the slightest uncouth. No. Nobody on here has met me. But if you actually read ALL of my posts (and not just the ones in response to YOU), you would see that I am not a troll. Why is that when I point out an illogical or conspiratorial post you make, I am a troll?
Utopia is not an option. Isn’t that something Harry Browne said? (yes, I know he did not invent the phrase). You live in your own little utopia that is not reality. Pointing this out does not make me a troll.
Andy, America is not the LZ. Might be a better place if it were, but it’s not…now, or anytime soon.
Who is this Tony From Long Island? Has anybody here met him in person? IPR has had a long time troll problem, so I have to wonder if Tony From Long Island is one of them.
Robert, it wouldn’t. Do a search for my article entitled “The Libertarian Zone” to see how “national defense” would be handled in a free society.
T, yes, it says:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
I’ve met Andy. I think he’s generally extremely sincere, but sometimes he blatantly deflects straightforward challenges to his well-meaning but unsupportable positions.
I do sometimes believe that HE is the actual Troll and that he says these crazy things just to egg us on. But, sadly, it does appear that he really does think these things.
The one thing that the LP does advocate is a strong national defense (am I wrong about that?). I guess we’ll send them out with muskets and bayonets, like they did when the 2nd Amendment was written.
A: How about taking guns away from people in government?
me: Rhetorical smokescreen. I don’t believe you seriously suggest this.
But, ok, I’ll bite: If you have your way, how would a gun-less government provide for the national defense?
Tony, thanks.
I hate to say it, but there are Ls who believe that anyone can possess anything the government does, including machine guns and WMD. Thankfully, they are few and they generally don’t make their position known too much.
Certainly they are correct that the NAP COULD be read that way, which to me tells me the NAP is deeply flawed.
How about taking guns away from people in government? Everyone gets to have a gun but them.
Robert: You bring up a good point about the “Tommy” guns that have been banned for almost 100 years. It happened as a result of the mobster violence in the 30’s if I recall correctly. Where is the outcry from the 2nd Amendment about it?
The fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t define “arms” does not, in and of itself, mean that any and all arms are protected. That would be a ludicrous reading. The founders were great American’s but not soothsayers.
T: There is no way to prevent all acts of terror and violence, but anything that can help reduce the risk is OK with me.
me: “Anything” is FAR too broad for this hombre. Ensuring domestic tranquility is the government’s job, but not to the point that basic rights and liberties are trampled on.
My 2 bits.
I believe I am a strong supporter of 2A. The operative questions about what it means are:
1) What “arms” are protected constitutionally?
2) Where can those protected arms be carried?
Plainly, the Constitution does not define what arms are. This is no surprise, since in 1787, the choices of arms were rather few. Today, that’s not the case. Are WMD protected under the Constitution? Only the most extreme of the most extreme Ls would say Yes. Except for them, 99.999999999% of the population — some grudgingly — would have to admit that there can and should be enabling legislation to define what arms are covered under 2A and which are banned. Machine guns IIRC are banned, and I don’t hear a lot of objections to that.
Those arms which are NOT banned are therefore protected under the Constitution, although to me that only means that a citizen can possess those protected weapons on his or her property.
Where and how they can be carried is another matter. Again, only the most extreme believe that it’s a Constitutional right to tote a machine gun into the Capitol. Or even a hand gun. This violates Rothbard’s concept that property rights underpin all other rights. The Federal Government can exclude guns from its premises, just as Disney World can.
It follows that Chicago must respect one’s rights to possess, say, a hand gun at home, but it can pass laws governing carrying a gun on public property in Chicago. Spokane might say you CAN carry your gun there, but it has to have a safety, or you must license it for public carry, etc.
Unfortunately, hyperbole rules this issue, when it’s on the straightforward side for me. The only question in my mind is what weapons should be banned. It seems reasonable to me that machine guns are banned.
George Dance: You do point out a conundrum. However, as someone who was previously incarcerated, I can say that if you know you are being “watched,” you are incredibly less likely to engage in certain behaviors. Unless, of course, you are sociopath.
There is no way to prevent all acts of terror and violence, but anything that can help reduce the risk is OK with me. Of course, anything that limits access to powerful firearms to ANYONE is OK with me.
Tony from LI: “the terror watch lists lack due process at all. If that can be addressed, then I am absolutely find with people on that list being barred from purchasing any firearms.”
While I agree, in principle, I’d call that a counterfactual. First, terror watch lists to be effective have to be proactive: the idea is to catch people before they do anything. Second, they have to be secret: telling those being monitored that they’re being monitored defeats the whole idea. I don’t see how one can have an effective list without those two provisions; nor how one can restrict any rights, using a list that does have them, without violating due process.
Should read “will infuse . . . ” LOL but that was obvious from the context
Case and point – Andy and his “should read . . . ” conspiracy posts. Hopefully the success of the J / W ticket in November and infuse the LP with some sane rational voices and drown out the extremists.
It’s not only the ultra-extreme position the LP purists take on the 2nd Amendment. Seemed to me that the last two posts made that pretty clear.
Should read, “taxpayer funds and funds from charities….”
It is a known fact that the government hires crisis actors. Then factor in the millions of dollars in tax payer funds and from charities that have gone to the families of the alleged victims families in the hyped up shooting incidents.
Remember that Kuwaiti girl who gave tearful testimony about Iraqi troops ripping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die? It later came out that the entire story was a lie and that the girl had been coached on what to say.
I don’t see how supporting the Second Amendment makes one “fringe” or “purist”.
I find it sad, actually, that the LP even has to exist as the only political party that actually supports and believes in constitutional and natural rights. I also find it sad that we have to guard it against those who join our ranks because they don’t like the GOP nominee and expect us to bend to their whims.
I am glad that I am not alone. The purists really seemed to me to be a cult. The notion that there is some sort of all powerful federal government that can do what it pleases just doesn’t work for me. Of course, it is very flawed. It is comprised of people.
The notion that citizens need incredibly powerful weapons in case a violent overthrow of that same all-powerful government is just paranoia to the nth degree.
Tony, I let my membership lapse less because of vociferous CTists in the LP but more because it dawned on me that the premise — to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state (which doesn’t exist) — is one I don’t share. Since GJ and WW were nominated, there’s good reason to believe that the fringiest elements in the LP are simply a very vocal minority. Near as I can tell, the 89 20-something founders were also pretty fringe.
I am grateful for those who soldier on in the LP, even if they don’t buy into the extremism embedded in the foundational documents. I have someone to vote for in November, which feels pretty good to me.
If J/W does well in Nov., it will be interesting whether or not the LP gets swelled with edgy lessarchists vs. doctrinaire NAPsters. The former could become a real force in US politics, should the institution make some much-needed updating to the premise upon which it rests.
George: I have not called the AR-15 a “machine gun.” So, if you are going to throw flames, at least be accurate.
Also, yet another moron claiming these attacks are “false flags.” It’s really disgusting. Sad and revolting that you can live with yourselves. That guy crying at his mother’s funeral. Must be an Oscar-winning actor. I’m sad to even reside in the same nation as people like you.
The few months I have been posting here have really just reinforced why I left the LP.
No Fly, No Buy? No Dice.
the prize has been collected
Can anyone name the movie I am referring too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihH_-O7ev2o
(1) Federal imprisonment for up to 10 years for fathers who pass firearms down to their sons or daughters without government permission. This is an age-old tradition in America–and will be criminalized under the ruse of “closing the gun show loophole.”
I am going to have to buy a gun and leave it to my son in my will so that the last thing I do is a Federal Felony… the Feds can store my remains as punishment for as long as they like.
Does anyone have the address in Orlando where they stockpile shooting victims for use in false flag operations?
Does it have a sign in its front yard the says “Dead %$#@% Storage”?
Can anyone name the movie I am referring too?
Tony, An AR-15 IS NOT a machine gun. You simply don’t know what you are talking about, so you fit right in.
Andy, I’ve probably seen some of the same videos you have. Groups of people carrying hurt (“shot”?) bar patrons down the sidewalk TOWARD the Pulse Club (and then dropping the supposedly crippled bar patron on the sidewalk as soon as they think the cameras have stopped rolling).
I agree that the Orlando “Pulse” incident is very fishy.
(Not to mention the fact that the alleged perpetrator had THE VERY HIGHEST LEVELS OF GUN LICENSING RECOGNIZED BY FLORIDA LAW, and had passed every background check (including perhaps even a security clearance), and worked as a government licensed “security” operative. )
“Roger Roots
June 21, 2016 at 21:19
Jon,
Political winds only appear to be shifting in favor of gun control in the wake of Orlando.”
This is exactly why “they” are pulling these false flags. Most, or maybe even all, of these hyped up shooting incidents are being staged by people within the government. Sound crazy? Do some homework on the issue.
Jon,
Political winds only appear to be shifting in favor of gun control in the wake of Orlando. November is a long way away. What seems like “common sense” at the moment may be viewed as hysterical a few months from now.
Yesterday, a number of U.S. Senators went on record supporting:
(1) Federal imprisonment for up to 10 years for fathers who pass firearms down to their sons or daughters without government permission. This is an age-old tradition in America–and will be criminalized under the ruse of “closing the gun show loophole.”
(2) lifetime bans (again subject to up to 10 years in prison for any violation) for people who are placed on secret government “watch lists” without their knowledge (or even so much as a letter in the mail), any right to confront evidence or accusers, or any right to contest such secret unaccountable placement on such secret government lists.
I suspect that the politicians who vote for such extreme totalitarian measures right now will regret their votes later.
Tony – an “assault weapon” is just an ordinary rifle that has a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, or flash suppressor. You could turn a plain old .22 rifle into an “assault rifle” just by adding those features. An assault rifle, as defined by the federal assault weapons ban, amounts only to cosmetic characteristics that make the rifle look scary.
George, if you are speaking about a specific weapon, then you are more than likely correct. I have a good feeling that buying an AR-15 is not all that difficult.
Andy, that’s a pretty broad statement. The Tin hat not allowing you to be specific today?
Tony, you do not appear to know what you are talking about. For starters you need what used to be called a Federal Class 3 license.
How about take guns away from government officials who violate people’s rights?
There are PLENTY of Due Process issues with the Sex Offender registries. However, you are correct that the terror watch lists lack due process at all. If that can be addressed, then I am absolutely find with people on that list being barred from purchasing any firearms.
The Text of the Democratic Bill includes the following
The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the United States by a
preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B, as the case may be. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.
To be put on the Sex Offender List you have to be convicted of a crime. The case against you has to be presented in court and you have the right to examine the evidence and cross examine the witnesses.
To be put on the Terror Watch List. Well how you get on is a secret. No court is involved. There is no way to view or challenge the evidence.
Also, it’s called the Terrorist “watch” list. Not the “known terrorists” list. There are over 800,.000 people on the sex offender list. Are they all dangerous? Absolutely not. Maybe 10% are truly dangerous. Would you abolish the sex offender registry?
Maybe it is in Massachusetts, George, but not everywhere…
The folks on the no fly lists are clearly almost entirely not terrorists, as witness the ratio of terrorist incidents to length of the lists.
Buying a weapon with autofire capacity is way more complicated than having enough money.
Jon, you can’t speak rationally to the “gun people.” That’s mainly why I left the LP. If congress can come up with a fair due process system for these “lists,” then absolutely anyone on them should be banned from purchasing firearms.
Then they can move on the next step and ban “assault weapons.” I seem to notice that the 2nd Amendment still existed when they were banned. No one “took away your guns.”
These positions are going to be difficult to sell to the American voters come November. Americans are scared and fed up with Congress letting terrorists on the No Fly list buy guns, not to mention letting any nut with the money to buy a machine gun for “hunting purposes.” Try sending your presidential nominees in places like Orlando, Aurora and other cities that have been victims of mass shootings and see how well your guns for liberty argument sells. It’s no wonder the LP party can never get over 1% of the popular vote in presidential elections.