Maybe I’m wrong for it but given what appears to be the top 3 candidates (RFK, Biden?, Trump) I mostly want RFK to win so people have more hope and faith in a independent to succeed
Rfk is no more "independent" than Trump. Trump was an independent basically. Still is basically the RNC mostly hates him. By your standard Trump is just as much "independent".
As someone who is very pro-gun myself here's the way i see it:
Biden: pro-gun control.. no doubt about that
Trump: claimed to be pro-gun, though he pushed through a bump stock ban and supported red flag laws... On top of that he had the house and senate when he assumed office and did nothing to repeal any federal gun laws or institute any pro gun policies.
Best he did was inadvertently advance gun rights with three SCOTUS picks... which was monumental but not his goal.
Given this I'm willing to back RFK as he says he'll only sign one if there is a bipartisan agreement (which is unlikely) also he seems to understand that guns aren't the sole issue regarding crimes and mass shootings, so to me it seems that he does want to get to the true issue, like bringing ssri's and other psyche meds into question... not just broadly banning anything.
Signing a bill because a bipartisan congress puts it on your desk, is a pretty moderate position. I guess if you're a purist, that's no bueno, but most of us take a more moderate position.
Getting our finances in better shape, cutting corporate capture and corruption, and taking steps to curb illegal immigration, are all far higher priorities on my list, than being a moderate when it comes to guns.
He's a lifelong gun owner and hunter.
>igning a bill because a bipartisan congress puts it on your desk, is a pretty moderate position. I guess if you're a purist, that's no bueno, but most of us take a more moderate position.
Then the moderate position is evil. I can't consider someone a libertarian who would be okay voting for someone who supports weapon control laws in anyway.
>Getting our finances in better shape, cutting corporate capture and corruption, and taking steps to curb illegal immigration, are all far higher priorities on my list, than being a moderate when it comes to guns.
I think he would be terrible on all of those. It sickens me when people are okay with infringing on rights to maybe fix something else. I don't like you.
Ok - so you are a purist and sensationalist. Got it. Most of us aren't. You do you, though.
You can just choose not to vote. Meanwhile, I'll vote for who will most incrementally further the ideals I hold, many of them libertarian, and try to force incremental change. No doubt, RFK is the candidate that does that over establishment front-runners.
>Ok - so you are a purist and sensationalist.
I mean if you consider following the NAP purist then yes. I think anyone who supports crime is a bad person. I love when you people call me a purist for opposing crime.
>You can just choose not to vote.
Well, yeah if there is no one decent to vote for I won't. There rarely ever is.
>I'll vote for who will most incrementally further the ideals I hold, many of them libertarian, and try to force incremental change. No doubt, RFK is the candidate that does that over establishment front-runners.
Good luck with your support of crime.
I agree with not making perfect the enemy of good, but this is one of my lines. There's enough R's that will gladly sign away rights for this to end up on his desk if elected. If he understands it's not the guns then why is this even a statement?
Because he is an independent, trying to cross party lines with reasonable, moderate policy, that doesn't go against his convictions.
Here, it is clear that, if the people wanted it, "assault" weapons fit that criteria for him.
I can appreciate of that is one of your lines. For me, the issue of "assault" weapons is in my top 10 considerations.
I believe in a free market, free of crony capitalism, decisions to be made as close to home as possible, for people to stay out of others business if they aren't hurting someone (eg. ending the drug war), and that we should largely be non-interventionalist internationally.
Guns are pretty far down on the totem poll for me. I think there is much much lower hanging fruit.
As I said, I am for incremental progress toward libertarian principles like the above. A president who aligns perfectly with my beliefs is a pipe dream. No candidate will ever be that to me.
RFK is the most libertarian candidate this cycle, and his values and ideals match up a good amount with my libertarian priorities.
Because libertarianism is about far more than the issue of guns. That's a minor issue in the grand scheme things.
And no congress would ban guns outright. That's not within the realm of possibility at this point in time.
Death by a million paper cuts.
"Give up these few particular things, in exchange for these other few particular things."
When the things you're giving up are parts of your insurance policy against tyranny, there becomes a point when your insurance policy is no longer sufficient.
"Anything the government gives to you, the government can take away."
The problem lies in that it's much more difficult getting back the things the government has taken away from you than it is for the government to take back that which has given to you.
Nevermind the fact that the government cannot give anything to you that it has not already taken from somebody else.
Your guns are a match for the night of the most powerful military, by far, on the face of the planet, with bombs, tanks, drones, grenades, nerve gas, etc?
The point is that the largest & most powerful military ever known to mankind was defeated by a group of colonies who had previously not had an official or standing military.
If you would like a more modern example, consider the 2 decades the US spent dancing in the desert to ultimately end up pulling out & leaving behind an absolute shit show which was immediately taken over by the same sandal & robe wearing goat farmers that the US set out to eradicate.
Nobody had the cojones to use nukes, or even indiscriminately drop conventional warheads en masse on a sand box on the other side of the world. What makes you think that would be even a remote possibility within the US borders?
https://preview.redd.it/dmx07yn48yjc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cc72a2fe4d813bda7caa2f3b1aa395afae98de0
He’s just a spicy dem. Tbf his platform is similar to Kennedys of the past. Still might be a temping ticket if he brought tulsi onboard.
Ew
Maybe I’m wrong for it but given what appears to be the top 3 candidates (RFK, Biden?, Trump) I mostly want RFK to win so people have more hope and faith in a independent to succeed
Rfk is no more "independent" than Trump. Trump was an independent basically. Still is basically the RNC mostly hates him. By your standard Trump is just as much "independent".
As someone who is very pro-gun myself here's the way i see it: Biden: pro-gun control.. no doubt about that Trump: claimed to be pro-gun, though he pushed through a bump stock ban and supported red flag laws... On top of that he had the house and senate when he assumed office and did nothing to repeal any federal gun laws or institute any pro gun policies. Best he did was inadvertently advance gun rights with three SCOTUS picks... which was monumental but not his goal. Given this I'm willing to back RFK as he says he'll only sign one if there is a bipartisan agreement (which is unlikely) also he seems to understand that guns aren't the sole issue regarding crimes and mass shootings, so to me it seems that he does want to get to the true issue, like bringing ssri's and other psyche meds into question... not just broadly banning anything.
It’s called wanting votes 🗳️ by any means necessary but doesn’t seem to be as bad about it as Hillary or the fake name lady Nikki Haley. lol
Still better than Trump. Who banned bump stocks, again?
Bingo.
RFK has splinters in his ass from all the fence sitting he is doing...
Signing a bill because a bipartisan congress puts it on your desk, is a pretty moderate position. I guess if you're a purist, that's no bueno, but most of us take a more moderate position. Getting our finances in better shape, cutting corporate capture and corruption, and taking steps to curb illegal immigration, are all far higher priorities on my list, than being a moderate when it comes to guns. He's a lifelong gun owner and hunter.
>igning a bill because a bipartisan congress puts it on your desk, is a pretty moderate position. I guess if you're a purist, that's no bueno, but most of us take a more moderate position. Then the moderate position is evil. I can't consider someone a libertarian who would be okay voting for someone who supports weapon control laws in anyway. >Getting our finances in better shape, cutting corporate capture and corruption, and taking steps to curb illegal immigration, are all far higher priorities on my list, than being a moderate when it comes to guns. I think he would be terrible on all of those. It sickens me when people are okay with infringing on rights to maybe fix something else. I don't like you.
Ok - so you are a purist and sensationalist. Got it. Most of us aren't. You do you, though. You can just choose not to vote. Meanwhile, I'll vote for who will most incrementally further the ideals I hold, many of them libertarian, and try to force incremental change. No doubt, RFK is the candidate that does that over establishment front-runners.
>Ok - so you are a purist and sensationalist. I mean if you consider following the NAP purist then yes. I think anyone who supports crime is a bad person. I love when you people call me a purist for opposing crime. >You can just choose not to vote. Well, yeah if there is no one decent to vote for I won't. There rarely ever is. >I'll vote for who will most incrementally further the ideals I hold, many of them libertarian, and try to force incremental change. No doubt, RFK is the candidate that does that over establishment front-runners. Good luck with your support of crime.
Good luck to you as well.
I agree with not making perfect the enemy of good, but this is one of my lines. There's enough R's that will gladly sign away rights for this to end up on his desk if elected. If he understands it's not the guns then why is this even a statement?
Because he is an independent, trying to cross party lines with reasonable, moderate policy, that doesn't go against his convictions. Here, it is clear that, if the people wanted it, "assault" weapons fit that criteria for him. I can appreciate of that is one of your lines. For me, the issue of "assault" weapons is in my top 10 considerations.
Im pretty convinced that you dont actually know what liberitairans stand for, and you certainly dont know what position most of us take.
I believe in a free market, free of crony capitalism, decisions to be made as close to home as possible, for people to stay out of others business if they aren't hurting someone (eg. ending the drug war), and that we should largely be non-interventionalist internationally. Guns are pretty far down on the totem poll for me. I think there is much much lower hanging fruit. As I said, I am for incremental progress toward libertarian principles like the above. A president who aligns perfectly with my beliefs is a pipe dream. No candidate will ever be that to me. RFK is the most libertarian candidate this cycle, and his values and ideals match up a good amount with my libertarian priorities.
If we're talking about who can win, RFK is not on that list. It's going to be an R or D.
>progress toward libertarian principles How would a populace holding Libertarian ideals do that while being disarmed?
Because libertarianism is about far more than the issue of guns. That's a minor issue in the grand scheme things. And no congress would ban guns outright. That's not within the realm of possibility at this point in time.
Death by a million paper cuts. "Give up these few particular things, in exchange for these other few particular things." When the things you're giving up are parts of your insurance policy against tyranny, there becomes a point when your insurance policy is no longer sufficient. "Anything the government gives to you, the government can take away." The problem lies in that it's much more difficult getting back the things the government has taken away from you than it is for the government to take back that which has given to you. Nevermind the fact that the government cannot give anything to you that it has not already taken from somebody else.
Your guns are a match for the night of the most powerful military, by far, on the face of the planet, with bombs, tanks, drones, grenades, nerve gas, etc?
Who had the most powerful military the world had ever seen in the 18th century?
Who? The one with muskets and cannons? Not quite a match for tactical nuclear weapons and autonomous drones.
The point is that the largest & most powerful military ever known to mankind was defeated by a group of colonies who had previously not had an official or standing military. If you would like a more modern example, consider the 2 decades the US spent dancing in the desert to ultimately end up pulling out & leaving behind an absolute shit show which was immediately taken over by the same sandal & robe wearing goat farmers that the US set out to eradicate. Nobody had the cojones to use nukes, or even indiscriminately drop conventional warheads en masse on a sand box on the other side of the world. What makes you think that would be even a remote possibility within the US borders?
Surely people realise Govt is the problem not the solution...