Jacob Sullum writes: 'What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne', Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American’s constitutional rights depends on where he lives.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/081006-sullum-gun-owners.php
This comment of Obama's should be repeated, far and wide, by libertarian candidates. After which, perhaps the candidates can point out that the first gun laws in the nation were 'Jim Crow' laws that prevented blacks from owning weapons of self defense, in the post-civil war South. Lynchings abounded when Southern whites were the only people capable of carrying shotguns and pistols. The decentralization of individual power (via the equal application and enforcement of the law) is necessary to maintain freedom and peace!
Police harrassment and arrests of blacks drastically outnumber those of whites in the current drug war, in Chicago, ...where Obama is from. Is this what Obama thinks "works"? The war on gun owners and drug users is still dramatically, overwhelimingly racist. But sellout socialist blacks like Obama don't mind sending young black and mexican men to prison for things that aren't even crimes in the neighboring suburbs of Indiana and Missouri.
Is the life of a black man living in Chicago worth less than the life of a white man living in Cheyenne?
...And McCain is no better. He still champions "upholding the existing gun laws", and was the author of the "McCain-Lieberman Act", which would have de-facto banned gun shows (by requiring gun show promotors to maintain a SSN database of all attendees, even those selling only books). Moreover, both he and Obama are against even the ability of organizations like http://www.gunowners.org , http://www.jpfo.org , and the NRA to speak out against the track record of individual-rights-hating politicians like themselves. McCain-Feingold is a gag order on dissent, just like Obama's flirtation with "the fairness doctrine".
These Demopublican parasites have interfered with our gun rights, but they can see that we won't give up our guns, unless our voices are silenced!
If you bother to vote at all this election, you should withold your support from Obama and McCain. Vote Libertarian, or don't bother to vote for president at all. If you vote for every down-ticket office and don't vote for president, you are still sending a strong message. You are sending the message that "NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE" ---which is a very pro-freedom, very libertarian concept, in itself.
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Libertarian Critique of McCain
Matt Welch sums up why libertarians (true capitalists, true levellers) believe that McCain is an unphilosophical old douchebag, here. The link was brought to you by FORA TV, an often excellent online media source. http://fora.tv/
Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.
The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)
Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.
The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
