libertarian candidates

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by crimresearch [/i]


>>My 'own words' were that eveyone should read for themselves what Badnarik wrote on his website and make up their own minds...something that apparently terrifies Rouser's kind of Libertarian.

Your own words equated people who talk about taxes or Waco with pamplets on card tables as this or that. You can' t even own up to your own words.

"...someone spouting conspiracy theories about the 'gummint', tax resistance, and Waco, the chances of that being an LP activist are just as good as those of it being a LaRouchey, or any other such group." -- Crimresearch -- a serious non-thinker.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Originally posted by varwoche

>>Somehow I expect this is carved from the same twisted tree as Badnarik's belief that the 2nd amendment permits citizens to own nukes,


Badnarik has never held that citizens have the right to bear nukes --the words "any weapon" taken out of their proper context to build your own ridiculous strawman argument. "Any weapon" refers to any weapon which can be beared or carried as "arms" in the context of the inherent natural right of self-defense. Now whether that includes semi or automatic arms is a fine point which anyone might argue. But you lump that argument in with Nukes in order to suit your own slanderous purpose commiting the fallacy of fabricating a simplistic answer to a complex question. There is no campaign in the USA for individual ownership of nukes. Certainly not with the LP nor any thinking llibertarian.There is a very real and necessary crusade to restore the inherent right of self-defense shared by many people even in the major political parties. That's the position of the LP; that's the position of Badnarik, your own fallaciously contorted conclusions to the contrary, notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

<<Somehow I expect this is carved from the same twisted tree as Badnarik's belief that the 2nd amendment permits citizens to own nukes,


Badnarik have never held that citizens have the right to bear nukes --the words "any weapon" taken out of their proper context to build your own ridiculous strawman argument. "Any weapon" refers to any weapon which can be beared or carried as "arms" in the context of the inherent natural right of self-defense. Now whether that includes semi or automatic arms is a fine point which anyone might argue. But you lump that argument in with Nukes in order to suit your own slanderous purpose commiting the fallacy of fabricating a simplistic answer to a complex question. There is no campaign in the USA for individual ownership of nukes. Certainly not with the LP nor any thinking llibertarian.There is a very real and necessary crusade to restore the inherent right of self-defense shared by many people even in the major political parties. That's the position of the LP; that's the position of Badnarik, your own fallaciously contorted conclusions to the contrary, notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

Try to read the entire question and answer. Badnarik answered a question that directly referred to nuclear weapons, and he directly mentioned nuclear weapons in his reply. There is no straw man.

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Originally posted by varwoche [/i]

>>"As I am not a constitutional scholar, self-proclaimed or otherwise, I'd be interested in examples where the president has unilaterally overturned laws passed by congress, and context for same. Also, please tell me you didn't choose the verb "enforce" versus "overturn" as a means to wiggle this argument"

No, you certainly are no constitutional scholar but the wiggling is your own device. Your first challenge to the poster was examples of where the president had "erased" laws passed by congress. Then you wiggled and changed the word "erased" to the word "overturned". That is just another strawman argument. The president has the power to enforce or to not enforce any law passed by congress, even if that law has been determined to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. The effect of non-enforcement is the same as nullifying, or erasing that law.

After chief Justice John Marsall delivered the opinion that the Indian Removal laws (1830) were unconstitutional, Pres. Andrew Jackson refused to abide by the Court's decision (-- Winchester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. )

"He is reported to have said, 'John Marshall has made his 'decision. Now let him enforce it,' knowing that the U.S. Constitution gives the Court no right to enforce its decisions."

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Indian-Removal-Act


Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Try to read the entire question and answer. Badnarik answered a question that directly referred to nuclear weapons, and he directly mentioned nuclear weapons in his reply. There is no straw man.

You are factually incorrect. There is no mention of "nuclear weapons" in any reply.


-- Rouser

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

You are entirelly incorrect. There is no mention of "nuclear weapons" in any reply.


-- Rouser

The only person who is factually incorrect is you. You claimed that varwoche was quoting out of context and that Badnarik wasn't refering to nuclear weapons that is simply untrue:

Originally posted by varwoche
Quoting Badnarik, per google cache:

Finally, I will respond to one question I recently received via eMail. I am asked this question on a regular basis, to wit:

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic?
If so, then what about an automatic?
If so, what about a tank?
If so, what about a scud missle system?
If so, what about biological weapons?
If so, what about chemical weapons?
If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?

This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defense. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

This answer will not satisfy many people (such as Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Feinstein) because a "clear and present danger", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on WHO has extracted the revolver from the holster, and how much of a threat the person doing the evaluation feels at the moment. I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability. It is very much like sexual harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.

In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defense. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive ANYONE of ANY WEAPON, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment. MY idea of "Homeland Security" is for all 285 million Americans to purchase a gun if they don't already have one. If our country is exposed to a terrorist threat - I will hold a press conference and tell you how you can help to suppress the attack.

The excact words "nuclear weapons" is used in the question and Badnarik refers to "nuclear capability" in his reply, considering that it's about weapon laws, he's clearly not talking about nuclear powerplants.

 

[shanek]

While the Libertarian party doesn't own the franchise on fringe lunacy, it seems to be defining the outer border, what with the nomination of Badnarik.

Oh, beautiful. Badnarik's a nut because the LP has a lot of nuts, and the LP has a lot of nuts because they nominated Badnarik.

He will almost certainly be visiting several areas of your state numerous times before the election. GO TALK WITH HIM. Unless you're afraid that he might actually show you to be wrong...

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Also, please tell me you didn't choose the verb "enforce" versus "overturn" as a means to wiggle this argument.

It's not wiggling. It's actually what happens. The President has the power to enforce the laws. But he is SWORN to uphold and defend the Constitution, so, by the Constitutional passages I cited, he MUST refuse to enforce any unconstitutional laws.

And oh by the way, what's with the quaint veto/override system? Seems like a meaningless construct, given the absolute power you grant the president.

I never said that. You're just lying now. I specifically said it was part of the checks and balances built into our system. You behave like this and expect people to listen to you when you call Badnarik a nut?

 

[shanek]

Care to give your interpretation of his stance on nuclear weapons?

I thought it was pretty obvious: you can't go after anyone for having any kind of weapon unless you had a good reason to believe they were going to use it to harm someone. And as he said, you needn't wait until they actually do harm. You can't go around arresting people for the stuff they have, no matter how much you might disagree with them having it. You ONLY get to step in to prevent harm done to others. It's called "freedom."

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Try to read the entire question and answer. Badnarik answered a question that directly referred to nuclear weapons, and he directly mentioned nuclear weapons in his reply. There is no straw man.

Badnarik's only problem here was falling for the trap of answering a ridiculous question. No matter how he answered it, he was screwed. Browne had to learn how to deal with such questions when he ran for President, and Badnarik needs to learn how to do likewise.

I mean, are people REALLY afraid of their neighbors getting a nuke???

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

The excact words "nuclear weapons" is used in the question and Badnarik refers to "nuclear capability" in his reply, considering that it's about weapon laws, he's clearly not talking about nuclear powerplants.

It's also clear that he's only talking about peaceful people who would use it as a deterrent.

 

[Kerberos]

I thought it was pretty obvious: you can't go after anyone for having any kind of weapon unless you had a good reason to believe they were going to use it to harm someone. And as he said, you needn't wait until they actually do harm. You can't go around arresting people for the stuff they have, no matter how much you might disagree with them having it. You ONLY get to step in to prevent harm done to others. It's called "freedom."

The problem is that by the time my neighbour actually pushes the button it's a little late to do something about it.

Badnarik's only problem here was falling for the trap of answering a ridiculous question. No matter how he answered it, he was screwed. Browne had to learn how to deal with such questions when he ran for President, and Badnarik needs to learn how to do likewise.

He didn't just answer the question, he put the answer out on his bloody website! It's not as if we're harassing him about a bad answer to some question a reporter asked him without warning, he answered an E-mail, and he put the answer out on his website. You're probably correct that he would have been criticized no matter what, but I have serious trouble thinking of any answer that would have made him sound nuttier than the one he gave. The fact that any answer would have been criticized, doesn’t change the fact that this one is beyond ridiculous. Some of the other answers might have been defensible; this one makes him a serious candidate for a cell with rubber walls, not for the leadership of a nation.

I mean, are people REALLY afraid of their neighbors getting a nuke???

no but that's because I don't think my neighbours can get them. If Badnarik made it legal to have nukes then you bet I'd be worried.

It's also clear that he's only talking about peaceful people who would use it as a deterrent.

Gee, that's a great comfort. Care to enlighten us as to how you determine if people are peaceful?

 

[shanek]

The problem is that by the time my neighbour actually pushes the button it's a little late to do something about it.

And if you'll read Badnarik's comments you'll see he acknowledges that:

You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

Now, do you have any problems with what Badnarik ACTUALLY SAID?

He didn't just answer the question, he put the answer out on his bloody website!

As I said, he allowed himself to be trapped. It's something he's going to have to deal with as he continues his campaign.

You're probably correct that he would have been criticized no matter what, but I have serious trouble thinking of any answer that would have made him sound nuttier than the one he gave.

I ask again: what is nutty about his position? (Note: "I'll just let it speak for itself" is NOT an answer.)

The fact that any answer would have been criticized, doesn’t change the fact that this one is beyond ridiculous. Some of the other answers might have been defensible; this one makes him a serious candidate for a cell with rubber walls, not for the leadership of a nation.

Why?

no but that's because I don't think my neighbours can get them. If Badnarik made it legal to have nukes then you bet I'd be worried.

Why? Are your neighbors inherently violent people just itching to get their hands on a nuke? If they really were the violent type, do you really think they'd let a little thing like the law get in their way?

Gee, that's a great comfort. Care to enlighten us as to how you determine if people are peaceful?

If they don't do any violence against others, they're peaceful, pretty much by definition.

Unless you're going to take the paranoid (and VERY nutty) position that all people are just violent killers waiting to emerge...

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

The only person who is factually incorrect is you. You claimed that varwoche was quoting out of context and that Badnarik wasn't refering to nuclear weapons that is simply untrue:


The excact words "nuclear weapons" is used in the question and Badnarik refers to "nuclear capability" in his reply, considering that it's about weapon laws, he's clearly not talking about nuclear powerplants.

To continually repeat a falsehood does not make it true. Nowhere in B's reply does he mention "nuclear" anything. The complex question does; his answer does not. "Any weapon" clearly refers to that which he did specify; namely, various kinds of "arms" meaning, defensive weapons which can be carried or born by citizens.

-- Rouser

 

[Kerberos]

And if you'll read Badnarik's comments you'll see he acknowledges that:

Now, do you have any problems with what Badnarik ACTUALLY SAID?

I know that perfectly well, if you had read what I wrote on this thread, you'd know that I made that very point to varwoche. The problem is that Badnarik didn’t draw the logical conclusion of his own argument, and said that nukes shouldn’t be available to private citizens.

As I said, he allowed himself to be trapped. It's something he's going to have to deal with as he continues his campaign.

And as I said he wasn't trapped, there were answers he could have given that would not have made him sound like a lunatic. The problem isn't the question, the problem is his opinions.

I ask again: what is nutty about his position? (Note: "I'll just let it speak for itself" is NOT an answer:

That was varwoche's answer not mine, though I agree that the nuttiness is so obvious that it shouldn't require explanation. The problem is that unless you can read minds, you can't know for certain if they’re going to use the nuke to take out half of New York

Why? Are your neighbors inherently violent people just itching to get their hands on a nuke? If they really were the violent type, do you really think they'd let a little thing like the law get in their way?

I don't think my neighbours are violent, but I can't vouch for anybody who live within 10 kilometres, or whatever the blast radius of a nuke is. Actually I’d have to be able to vouch for the entire population of the Earth, since I doubt that Badnarik would keep private citizens from owning ICBMs either. As for allowing the law to get in the way, I'm sure that a terrorist wouldn't be bothered by breaking the law, but in case you hadn't noticed we have these little organisations called police and intelligence organisations. Getting your hands on nuclear weapons, without them noticing could be rather difficult.

If they don't do any violence against others, they're peaceful, pretty much by definition.

So anybody without a record of violent crime can have nuclear weapons? Do you honestly think that OBL can't find just one person, who hasn't committed any crimes, or at least hasn't been caught, who can buy some nukes and detonate them in the states?

Unless you're going to take the paranoid (and VERY nutty) position that all people are just violent killers waiting to emerge...

Of course the vast, vast majority would never do any such thing, but it only takes one, and the notion that nobody without a criminal record would ever do such a thing, is almost as nutty, as the notion that everybody would. The fact is that in the absence of a reliable way to read minds, you'd have no reliable way of preventing a terrorist organisation from buying a nuke and detonate it in the middle of USA.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

To continually repeat a falsehood does not make it true. Nowhere in B's reply does he mention "nuclear" anything. The complex question does; his answer does not. "Any weapon" clearly refers to that which he did specify; namely, various kinds of "arms" meaning, defensive weapons which can be carried or born by citizens.

-- Rouser

Do you have trouble with your eyes? I bolded the passage where he refered to nuclear capability. In case you missed it here is the passage "I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability". Can you see it now? I'd have put it in a flashing box for you, but unfortunatly I don't know how. You can go back and see it in both varwoche's post and in mine. You can even still find it in Googles cache.

 

[crimresearch]

"...>>My 'own words' were that eveyone should read for themselves what Badnarik wrote on his website and make up their own minds...something that apparently terrifies Rouser's kind of Libertarian."

"Your own words equated people who talk about taxes or Waco with pamplets on card tables as this or that. You can' t even own up to your own words. "

So either Rouser is desperately flip-flopping from one topic to another, or he admits that the kook at the card table IS Baradnik...that does make sense once you go to the website and read his statements on blowing up the UN, and his 'constitutional scholarship'.

 

[shanek]

I know that perfectly well, if you had read what I wrote on this thread, you'd know that I made that very point to varwoche. The problem is that Badnarik didn’t draw the logical conclusion of his own argument, and said that nukes shouldn’t be available to private citizens.

How is that a logical conclusion? The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that they should only be stopped from owning nukes when they pose a clear and present danger to others. If you're going to argue that the mere possession of a nuke represents a clear and present danger, and can posit logical reasons for your conclusions, that's fine, but then you're adding in a new argument that isn't present in Badnarik's. And based on Badnarik's comments, if the mere possession of nukes could be shown to be a clear and present danger, then that would justify action.

But don't base your judgement of Badnarik's conclusion on an argument that you came up with yourself that there's no indication that he was ever presented with.

And as I said he wasn't trapped, there were answers he could have given that would not have made him sound like a lunatic.

Like?

People can own and use weapons until they pose a clear and present danger to others. How is that stance lunacy?

The problem isn't the question, the problem is his opinions.

No, the problem is that you don't agree with his opinions. For the record, I don't, either, not 100%. I could be persuaded that the possesion of nukes could represent an unreasonable danger to others, and I also believe that "arms" as used by the second amendment refers to personal weapons, not weapons of mass destruction. But unlike you, I'm not going to label someone a "nut" just because he disagrees with me.

The problem is that unless you can read minds, you can't know for certain if they’re going to use the nuke to take out half of New York

And unless you can read minds, you can't know for sure if someone is going to use a car to mow down a bunch of pedestrians. That doesn't mean you get to stop him from owning a car. You have to, at the very least, have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person intends harm.

As for allowing the law to get in the way, I'm sure that a terrorist wouldn't be bothered by breaking the law, but in case you hadn't noticed we have these little organisations called police and intelligence organisations. Getting your hands on nuclear weapons, without them noticing could be rather difficult.

And these organizations are perfectly capable of determining who poses a danger and who doesn't. In fact, that's the whole reason for their existance.

So anybody without a record of violent crime can have nuclear weapons? Do you honestly think that OBL can't find just one person, who hasn't committed any crimes, or at least hasn't been caught, who can buy some nukes and detonate them in the states?

I'm saying you can't deprive someone of his rights no matter what you think he might do.

Of course the vast, vast majority would never do any such thing, but it only takes one,

Funny, I seem to remember people using that argument to justify all sorts of atrocities.

and the notion that nobody without a criminal record would ever do such a thing, is almost as nutty, as the notion that everybody would.

Well, then it's a good thing that nobody is saying that. But it still doesn't change the fact that you're using scare tactics as an excuse to restrict liberty. Show that the mere ownership of a nuke represents a clear and present danger, and then you have an argument. Until then, all you have is FUD.

The fact is that in the absence of a reliable way to read minds, you'd have no reliable way of preventing a terrorist organisation from buying a nuke and detonate it in the middle of USA.

You also don't have any way of preventing them from doing it with boxcutters, either.

Besides, are you REALLY saying, especially in light of your statement above that the police and intelligence agencies would certainly find out about it, that they wouldn't be able to figure out what these people were up to? I'm sure lugging a nuke around is bound to attract more attention than taking flight classes and buying boxcutters.

 

[Kerberos]

"...>>My 'own words' were that eveyone should read for themselves what Badnarik wrote on his website and make up their own minds...something that apparently terrifies Rouser's kind of Libertarian."

"Your own words equated people who talk about taxes or Waco with pamplets on card tables as this or that. You can' t even own up to your own words. "

So either Rouser is desperately flip-flopping from one topic to another, or he admits that the kook at the card table IS Baradnik...that does make sense once you go to the website and read his statements on blowing up the UN, and his 'constitutional scholarship'.

I totally agree but based on the discussion about Baradnik's stance on nuclear weapons he's probably visit the site and then deny that any of the words, Blowing, UN, constitutional or scholarship appeared on the weabpage.

 

[Kerberos]

How is that a logical conclusion? The logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that they should only be stopped from owning nukes when they pose a clear and present danger to others.

According to Badnarik the line is when "when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger. " In the case of nukes that is when you're within the blast radius. I doubt that there are many places in the USA, where there's nobody within the blast radius or within the area that would be contaminated by radiation.

Like?

Like saying that it only referred to personal weapons such as pistols, riffles assault rifles and similar.

No, the problem is that you don't agree with his opinions. For the record, I don't, either, not 100%. I could be persuaded that the possesion of nukes could represent an unreasonable danger to others, and I also believe that "arms" as used by the second amendment refers to personal weapons, not weapons of mass destruction. But unlike you, I'm not going to label someone a "nut" just because he disagrees with me.

I very seldom label people who disagree with me as nuts, but when their stance if implemented would allow terrorist to get nuclear weapons relatively easily, then I have no problem labelling them nutcases.

And unless you can read minds, you can't know for sure if someone is going to use a car to mow down a bunch of pedestrians. That doesn't mean you get to stop him from owning a car. You have to, at the very least, have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person intends harm.

There are a couple of significant differences. First of all there is a difference of degree, you could kill perhaps 20 people with a car; you could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions with a nuke. Secondly cars have important uses that don’t involve killing people. Nukes have no other purpose, and if you're anywhere near a populated area (that is almost anywhere in the USA I suspect) you couldn't even use it for self-defence.

And these organizations are perfectly capable of determining who poses a danger and who doesn't. In fact, that's the whole reason for their existance.

Are you being deliberately dense? They can't read minds! Acquiring nuclear weapons today would require either building a reactor and a lot of expert knowledge, or getting material from some sites that are fairly heavily guarded. It is difficult to do those things without being discovered, if it wasn't OBL would most likely have detonated a nuke in USA years ago. On the other hand it is practically impossible to determine with certainty that somebody isn't an agent of Al-Qaida.

I'm saying you can't deprive someone of his rights no matter what you think he might do.

That's beside the point since they have no right to have nukes. You have indicated that you agree with that so why do you keep pretending that keeping people from having nukes is some gross attack on their freedom?

Funny, I seem to remember people using that argument to justify all sorts of atrocities.

Non sequitur.

Well, then it's a good thing that nobody is saying that. But it still doesn't change the fact that you're using scare tactics as an excuse to restrict liberty. Show that the mere ownership of a nuke represents a clear and present danger, and then you have an argument. Until then, all you have is FUD.

The term scare tactics is generally used when somebody is exaggerating the threat, in order to scare people, in this case as long as there is good reason to be scared. Nukes are bloody scary and once you're within the blast radius doing something about it is too late.

You also don't have any way of preventing them from doing it with boxcutters, either.

Besides, are you REALLY saying, especially in light of your statement above that the police and intelligence agencies would certainly find out about it, that they wouldn't be able to figure out what these people were up to? I'm sure lugging a nuke around is bound to attract more attention than taking flight classes and buying boxcutters.

Again there is a difference of scale, terrible as 9/11 was it was nothing compared to a nuclear blast. Secondly you don't need to bring the nuke into any secure area; you simply need to bring it into a city. Unless you want to live in a police state, there's no way to keep a gay with a nuke from doing that. You could probably stop him from getting into the White House, but not from bringing it within a kilometre of it, or simply ignoring political targets and just detonate it in a random city.