Monday, December 17, 2012

Libertarian Party calls for abolishing Federal Gun Free School Zones in wake of CT shooting

Release...

Dec. 16, 2012

Halt the Massacre of Innocent Children by Ending Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools

Families throughout the nation mourn the horrific deaths of 26 people, including 20 young children, killed Friday during a Newtown, Conn., mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“It’s impossible to imagine the depths of despair and grief that the victims’ families are experiencing right now,” said Geoffrey J. Neale, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Our hearts go out to every one of them.”

In the immediate aftermath of news surrounding the shootings, pundits and politicians called for new restrictions on firearm ownership, exactly the opposite of the approach needed to combat tragic gun violence in schools.

“We've created a 'gun-free zone,' a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth," said R. Lee Wrights, vice-chair of the Libertarian Party. "We've given them an open killing field, and we've made the children of this country the victims."

Wrights pointed out that merely the knowledge that armed people will be present acts as a deterrent for would-be shooters.

"They're not going to walk into a police station, and why not? Because that's where the guns are," he said.

The Federal Gun Free Schools Zone Act prohibits carrying firearms on school grounds in most cases, effectively criminalizing the right to self-defense in places filled with the most vulnerable citizens. Without that federal prohibition, adults working at the school would have been free to defend themselves, very possibly saving the lives of many of the young children and adults who were slain in this horrific tragedy.

"We must stop blinding ourselves to the obvious: Most of these mass killings are happening at schools where self-defense is prohibited," said Carla Howell, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "Gun prohibition sets the stage for the slaughter of innocent children. We must repeal these anti-self-defense laws now to minimize the likelihood they will occur in the future and to the limit the damage done when they do."

Full release LP.org

Editor's note - People ask us all the time here at Libertarian Republican, you guys are Republicans, why do you like the Libertarian Party so much? This is why! We here at LR agree 1000% with Carla Howell and our LP friends on this. We're not seeing any Republicans issuing fan-fucking-tab-ulous press releases like this!

60 comments:

Erich Domdero said...

Yeah we'd all be a lot safer if every us citizen carried an Uzi at all times.

Eric Dondero said...

Gun control is not about duck hunting. It's about protecting ourselves from foreign enemies who wish to invade our country, such as radical Islamist terrorists. So yes, Americans need to have as much firepower as possible.

Remember why was it gun confiscator Hitler never launched a ground invasion of the United States? In his own words, cause he knew the American public was armed.

Erich Domdero said...

I think he was a little busy with England and Russia at the time.

The Right Guy said...

Hitler made his choices, the Japanese though, knew better.

Eric Dondero said...

No, Domdero, I'm a WWII buff. Read everything there is on the subject. There were plans drawn up. Some in the Nazi Party advocated Hitler invade. He came very close to doing so. You might recall, there were a couple U-boat incidents in Long Island, NY and Cape Hatteras, NC where German sailors actually landed on U.S. soil.

His final decision was to "hold off," on any ground invasion, largely because he knew there'd be stiff resistance from the American populace who were all "gun owners."


Eric Dondero said...

Domdero, south Texas landowners are threatened on a daily basis by Mexican drug cartels who use coyotes to smuggle drugs across their lands.

Are you suggesting that these Texas landowners should be disarmed? Maybe limited to just carrying a side-arm little '45?

The drug smugglers would just laugh in their faces, before shooting them.

Eric Dondero said...

Oh, wait, I guess we should just let these land owners rely on local enforcement, some 50 to 100 miles away. Yeah, that's really gonna work. Local Sheriff or Border Patrol Agent arrives on the scene an hour later, and discovers the ranch owner's body shot up with bullets.

The Right Guy said...

There were also some pretty huge logistics to overcome.

Erich Domdero said...

As you have erroneously stated many times that hitler was a leftist, your credentials as a WWII buff are highly questionable. And your assertion that the Germans held off starting a third front due to Abner and his .22 is particularly hilarious.

jgeleff said...

Hitler WAS a leftist. State control equals leftist. He was a believer in state control.

jgeleff said...

We need to listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano, who said, "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to shoot at deer. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to shoot at the government if it is taken over by tyrants."

Erich Domdero said...

Military dictators throughout history would dispute that.

Chuck said...

Name one, you fucking ape.

The Right Guy said...

He can't.

Eric Dondero said...

Hitler supported a minimum wage law for German workers.

Minimum wage laws are antithetical to free market principles.

Famous libertarian free market economist Ludvig von Mises fled Austria, right before the Anschluss because Hitler and his henchmen, all Socialists, were "on the hunt" for advocates of libertarian free market philosophy.

The libertarian movement in the United States in the late 1930s, headed by Isabell Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane and a young and budding author named Ayn Rand were the staunchest critics and opponents to Hitler's American Nazi brigades based in NYC and Chicago.

Eric Dondero said...

the Jews who hid out in the forests and fought back against the Nazis along with many of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising fighters, were LIBERTARIANS.

The Right Guy said...

Yes Eric, but many of these jews came to America and became progressives and communists. I grew up with jewish friends and I knew only one that was pro-gun. May be it's something Ran can help me with, but I never got it.

Erich Domdero said...

Hitler, Montt, Pinochet, Mussolini and Somoza would all be quite surprised to learn that they were liberals.

Chuck said...

Hitler was a far left, animal rights activist, socialist, vegetarian.

Holy shit, you vermin are pathetically stupid.

Erich Domdero said...

I'm pretty sure that religious persecution and hyper-nationalism are a bit more relevant to a discussion of the political spectrum than animal rights and vegetarianism.

The Right Guy said...

With progressives, it's all inclusive.

Eric Dondero said...

Hitler was a "hyper-nationalist" because he wanted to spread the SOCIALIST agenda, Europe-wide.

Yes, his animal rights support and vegetarianism are probably irrelevent to that. But his SOCIALIST ECONOMIC AGENDA, is not!

Again, Hitler's hunters were spread out all over Great Germany looking for libertarians like Ludvig von Mises. Hell, there are indications that he even hated Conservatives. That's right. There was a National Party in Germany. And Hitler went after them with a vengence in 1933. Arrested some of the Party's leaders. He also hated the Catholic Church.

But his main target was what he called "Jewish Capitalists."





Chuck said...

All the monsters are from the left. They always have been. Leftists like this anonymous ape are the scum of the earth and always have been.

Erich Domdero said...

Again, Naziism is a movement that originated out of anti-communism. Also named four other far-right dictators which you seem to have no response to. I understand that most of you are fairly ignorant as to actual political terminology but this is just plain embarassing. The National Socialist Party was socialist in the same way that The People's Republic of China is a republic. And The Aryan Nation would be quite shocked to discover they were liberals.

The Right Guy said...

And what you fail to understand is that both are authoritarian and totalitarian which equals bad.

Erich Domdero said...

I completely understand that. But the fact is that they aren't leftist. They're rightist.

I kind of feel bad for you 'The Right Guy'. While I disagree with your views, you seem intelligent. As opposed to Eric who lacks the very basics of political understanding and Chuck who is clearly just a petulant child with a 'shocking' vocabulary.

Chuck said...

"Again, Naziism is a movement that originated out of anti-communism"

A competing brand of socialism at the time.

Your stupidity is hilarious.

Erich Domdero said...

Your denial of the obvious is just a habit at this point.

Eric Dondero said...

Yoh, jerkoff. Naziism grew out of hatred of CAPITALISM. Very early on, when they were just 10 guys meeting in a Munich beer hall, it was called the GERMAN WORKER'S SOCIALIST PARTY. The leader before Hitler was a diehard Socialist.

They were Menschiviks basically. Like in Russia at the time, Menschiviks and Bolsheviks were both Communist, just that the Menschiviks favored a gradualist approach. The Bolsheviks were the Revolutionary Communists. But both Menches and Bolshies were COMMUNIST. No difference in their economic philosophy.

Eric Dondero said...

Jim, almost gets it 100%. Yes, what dumdero fails to misunderstand is that they are both totalitarian philosophies. And totalitarianism is a philosophy solely of the LEFTWING.

There's no such thing as rightwing totalitarianism. No such thing as a totalitarian libertarian.

Erich Domdero said...

Again Mussolini Pinochet Montt Somoza. Even with your silly 'Hitler was liberal' argument, you don't address the other four I mentioned. Hyper-nationalism and racial and religious persecution has always been of the right. Feel free to let the Ku Klux Klan know that they're liberals!

The Right Guy said...

left≠liberal. Progressive. Hitler was definitely one. He wanted to make the world safe for the aryan race one country at a time. Pinochet was right wing though. What matters more to me is the libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy.

Erich Domdero said...

Progressivism is all about equality. The extermination of Jews and invasion of Poland is not based on equality.

Eric has decided that anything 'good' is rightwing and anything 'bad' is leftwing.

The Right Guy said...

No. Progressivism is about using the power of the government to achieve an agenda. Left wing progressives want to use the government to achieve social and economic justice domestically. Right wing progressives want to use the government to achieve political justice usually globally. Examples of each are affirmative action and wealth redistribution on the left and making the world safe for democracy/interventionism on the right. A classical liberal has problems with both points of view.

The Right Guy said...

Making the world safe for democracy can mean a lot of things...As far as wealth distribution as done by government is just plain wrong, as is affirmative action, which is before the supreme court now.

Erich Domdero said...

That's not making the world safe for democracy, that's making the world safe for YOUR democracy. Sort of modernized imperialism.

I get the point of affirmative action. I just think the time where it was actually needed is passed. I don't think a lot of companies have race based hiring and promotion policies even subliminally anymore.

And I believe in a progressive tax system. Because the higher incomes benefit more from government than the poor do.

The Right Guy said...

Again with the template thinking. How do you know what my democracy is or what methods I support? I am not a right wing progressive, nor do I support interventionism. My statements were a commentary.

Erich Domdero said...

I'm not accusing you of anything per se. Just saying that in the past the right has not so much fostered and nurtured democracy in other countries, they have fostered and nurtured regimes that are friendly to their interests. Which is generally not the same thing.

The Right Guy said...

Right? I care more about libertarian/authoritarian spectrum. On the Nolan chart I am almost all the way libertarian, 90%, but only slightly right. Arguing the same one dimensional left-right paradigm is both boring and fails to take into consideration a more detailed reality.

Erich Domdero said...

Oh I completely agree. It just seems that some people on here consider everything they agree with to be on the right and everything they don't to be on the left. There are many issues that Liberterian and Conservative are diametrically opposed on. Like marijuana legalization and abortion.

The Right Guy said...

A libertarian could be anti-abrotion and even somewhat anti-marijuana, at least for personal use and behavior caused by it's use that would be illegal. What it's really about is leveraging government authority and power against individuals that infringes on their natural rights.

Erich Domdero said...

But what constitutes natural rights is debatable. For instance, my interpretation of right to life includes the right to adequate health care. Meaning that all citizens should have the same access to medical treatment, therefore the same ability to be alive. I think its fair to say that this right is not recognized that same way by the majority of commenters on this site.

The Right Guy said...

Everyone does have the same access. What you want is someone else to pay your medical bills. It has nothing to do with access, but money and how to redistribute it. It's the same way with affirmative action. Opportunity≠guarantee. You want guarantees. Forcing others to pay for someone else's medical bills or anything else is indentured servitude.

Erich Domdero said...

You already pay other people's medical bills. The way it works now is that if somebody shows up and can't pay for medical care, they still get care. So in order to make up for that loss, the care provider raises the prices on those that do pay. Hell, hospitals actually charge insurance companies more for a procedure than if an individual pays cash because they know they're actually going to get their money. One payer system is just shifting that burden from the middle class to the rich.

And, like it or not, you're already paying for other people's plenty of stuff. If you don't drive, you still pay for roads. If you don't fly, you still pay for all the government costs associated with that.

The Right Guy said...

We will always disagree, that I know. Paying for roads is different than paying for someone's medical bills or any other bills. Lastly, any third party payor is going to jack prices, even single payor and if the government thinks it can contain prices, service and quality will suffer. Always does. Free market is the best approach.

Erich Domdero said...

How is paying for roads any different is its somebody that doesn't use them?

Service and quality may suffer, but only for the rich that are used to getting preferential treatment. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stand for the medical care that the poor are accustomed to receiving.

I thank you for this mature debate/discussion. You are a reasonable and intelligent person and I respect that. You happen to be wrong about damn near everything, but I'll try not to hold that against you.

The Right Guy said...

All I can say is you have a chip on your shoulder with the rich. I have none with the rich, but with those that would take my time on this planet and use it for their agenda without my consent. Every hour I have to work pay taxes for someone else's bills, subsidies or foreign aid is time I will never get back. On top of this, we have debt that indentures everyone born in this country to the tune of $50,000 at birth. We also spend a lot more than we take in and even if you taxed everyone 100% it wouldn't cover our budget and it wouldn't even cover social security/PDP and medicare let alone adding on Obamacare. It's fiscal irresponsibility.

Erich Domdero said...

I would lay a majority of that blame on the fact that we entered into two prolonged wars and to pay for them we cut taxes. Surprisingly, that didn't work. I have an axe to grind with the rich as I see them taking full advantage of the freedoms that America provides but unwilling to contribute fairly to the costs. Tricks in accounting have helped them pay much lower actual percentages in taxes while the middle class doesn't have that advantage.

These deficets started with Reagan. Huge increases in military spending and cutting taxes to pay for them. And it has snowballed since then.

The Right Guy said...

Like I said, cutting out military and wars, 100% tax would not cover the entitlements and social programs. It's untenable.

Erich Domdero said...

The problem with the military and the wars doesn't only exist in the here and now though. It continues for as long as the veterans live. They continue to get benefits as former combatants. So we will continue to see these costs for decades. And that's in addition to all of the equipment we have paid for and wasted.

You can't be trying to claim that social and entitlement programs are more than 100% of the income of the country.

The Right Guy said...

Not only can I claim it, but it's true.

Erich Domdero said...

I'm going to need some sort of citation for that.

The Right Guy said...

Well, I stand corrected. The GNI or Gross National Income is between 9.7 and 14 trillion, depending on whose numbers you believe. What got mixed up was the budget versus the total debt. The total debt can't be paid off at 100% taxation. This is true no matter whose numbers you go with. That said, to pay the budget the average taxation would have to be around 25%. That's net taxation and that wouldn't take into account the debt, the interest on the debt and growing spending.

Four interesting videos that put things into context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70lkobYY0Hc&list=UUqcy4xPPVjmTnkg4kBaac2w&index=8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&list=UUqcy4xPPVjmTnkg4kBaac2w&index=15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miIBp7ufxjk&list=UUqcy4xPPVjmTnkg4kBaac2w&index=14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV-xPS5-GxE&list=UUqcy4xPPVjmTnkg4kBaac2w&index=2

Erich Domdero said...

That makes more sense. I thought you were trying to say that taxing 100% we would still be losing ground anyway. The fact is that we wouldn't be able to pay the whole national debt off in five years or so without totally wrecking the economy. Probably globally. In fact, if we tried, I don't think the owners of the debt would want us to. They know the ramifications. We need to get it back up to a surplus again (like during the Clinton years) and slowly work it down. I just don't understand why people are so reluctant to go back to the Clinton rates. Those were still low in the grand scheme of things.

I also find that the whole 'cutting rates actually increases revenue' argument to be completely silly. The one time that it actually did happen, (the early 80s) it was a coincidence. And right economists trot it out like its fact.

Personally, and I fully realize that this is going to give you a coronary, the way to get out of a recession this deep is to get money into the hands of the spenders. I'd be hiring so many low level government employees it would make your head spin. I'd be repaving so many roads they'd run out of orange vests. Because poor people spend money. And that money flows up. And too many people have been sitting on too much money for too long.

The Right Guy said...

From what I've read, only about 3% of the budget goes for such things. As far as clinton goes, he was president during the internet boom. That was a one time deal. We won't see that kind of growth again in our lifetime.

To me, it's a spending problem and a tax problem in that taxes are too disproportionate. almost 50% net pay nothing or get money back. That doesn't work. What would be better is a lower tax rate with no deductions. This would give people more money in their pockets when they get paid. What they wouldn't get is a check in April. There could be three tiers. One for people making less than 50K a year, 50-250k and above 250K. The flat rates could be 5%, 8% and 12%. These are total federal tax rates, no deductions. There would be more revenue and more money in the economy. Of course to go along with this, spending would have to be cut about 25%.

Erich Domdero said...

A few problems with that. First, how are you going to tax somebody 5% if they're living below the poverty line? Second, are we talking all income or just the current 'income' where capital gains are taxed differently? Third, eliminating the mortgage deduction is going to be an even bigger blow to an already fucked up market. Fourth, charities are going to lose an ass-load of donations if they aren't deductible, which means those funds are going to have to be made up somewhere. Probably by government. Personally, I think charities are woefully inefficient and the government could do a much better job with them, but you definitely don't want to hear that.

The Right Guy said...

What you are missing is that people pay more than 5% up front with federal taxes. The difference is what they take home. No one bases their finances on the check they get back from the government as expenses are week to week and month to month so in while you decry the end of the subsidy every april, their pay checks will be bigger.

The Right Guy said...

I also do not predicate charitable donations on whether or not I get deduction. In fact, if I had more money in my paycheck irrespective of a refund, charities would get more. With the current tax system, we take with one hand and give back with the other to people whose votes we want most. The lower 47% of the population that pay no effective taxes make up a greater number than those who make more money and pay most of the taxes. Who do the politicians fear most? The bottom line is that if anyone pays, we all have to pay something, net. It isn't that way now. One tax I would get rid of is estate tax. That income has already been taxed. What's nice about a simplified system is that the IRS could be reduced greatly into what is basically an accounting department with little enforcement duties because there are no games to be played for most tax payers. Lastly, the government is woefully inefficient and wasteful in doing most things, even things it does well, like the military. Private no-profits do a better job and people have more input and control into local charities where there donations do the most good.

Erich Domdero said...

But there still will be a sizeable portion of the population with no income or minimal cash income. How are you going to get money out of them? And there are people that depend on their refund check every year.

The Right Guy said...

No one depends on a once a year check for their day to day living. No one.