Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why can the Fed. Gov. prohibit ownership of an assault rifle manufactured after 1986 through legislation, but needs a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol?

Why?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I will answer for you.


BECAUSE IT IS AN UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF POWER!!!!

I am right. You know it. It's okay to admit it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because that can be accomplished through legislation, and has. You can't buy automatic weapons or nuclear missiles.

So, pot or alcohol prohibition can't be accomplished by statutes or through legislation, requiring a constitutional amendment, but gun prohibition can? You didn't answer why.

Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.

It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.

From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.

I agree with this part.

Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.

It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.

I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.

Which leads me to the point. The Federal Government does lots of things it is not supposed to do. Most of that bullshit started with the commie, FDR.

The States stand by and willfully let it happen.

 

[EverCurious]

LP is kind of what made me realize how close the parties were (and I have to say /were/ now because the DNC has taken a massive nose dive into the communist/socialist pool in recent years.)

I'm "so close" on so many spouted LP views, for example I'm pro-legalization of all drugs (bluntly, I say we let em kill themselves off,) but I also vehemently oppose some of the LP's arguments...

For example the idea of a smaller military [by which they mean cut funding to the military] is a hugely problematic stance for me (it's about the only form of long-term "welfare" I personally support - because it's such a good "trade-off" in the grander scheme of "gov spending" and "gov waste" vs "helping questionably responsible Americans in need." Sure soldiers get paychecks, pensions (which I really think we need to phase out,) "free" education, "free" health care, but more importantly in my mind, they get training that actually correlates to jobs which are available "right now" [vs colleges which not only spend more time teaching 'useless' social bullshit that typically changes on a whim of the populace (like I took a home ec class and learned to take care of babies and the house when I was in college - today that kind of a class would be banned to fuck all and likely get the college sued for sexism. The whim of the populace often bans/excludes/loses important lessons, based on the fluid principle of X [ID politics in this case] and thus "deny" a shit ton of people education that would actually be helpful to their lives - mine included things like making a budget for food shopping, how to make a "balanced" meal for your family, how to balance a checkbook, best practices for cleaning out a toilet, even how to unclog a kitchen sink with a hanger - its good stuff that is helpful for mothers [and maybe even fathers] to know - and not really sexist when you take the time to look into it.) College also struggles to keep pace with the speed of technology because... well, colleges tend to academia everything they teach trying to get the best return for their dollar in planning and publishing their curriculum, vs the military tends to train a "basic principle" with a heavy emphasis of hands on training in current tech, if not advanced tech.

TLDR - in my opinion military training/education, even if you set aside from the HUGE lessons learned in boot camp, is worlds above a college "education" as far as actually imparting the ability of a person to earn a decent living for oneself and ones family.


I think the biggest "ideology" that I agree with the LP on is "individualism" - that's always been a real stickler preventing me from supporting the GOP or the old "classical liberal" DNC. :/

 

[skews13]

From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.

I agree with this part.

Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.

It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.

I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.

Which leads me to the point. The Federal Government does lots of things it is not supposed to do. Most of that bullshit started with the commie, FDR.

The States stand by and willfully let it happen.

Wrong. SCOTUS has already decided in Heller v DC on the 2nd Amendment, and just refused a challenge to it. Scalia wrote the majority decision, of which the citizens have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, he also stuck with his originalist bent in citing the states have the absolute right to ban certain types of weapons, including military style rifles and semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, or any weapons the define as unusual. The court also ruled that states can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or open carrying of weapons in public.

Where did you get your law degree?

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't count.

And you have no place else to appeal that interpretation.

 

[flacaltenn]

From Libertarian viewpoint, drug ABUSE is a medical/educational problem. Most of us DO draw distinctions for different drugs depending on the risks and the dangers. And clearly -- Pot -- is worthy of AT LEAST state experimentation and decriminalization. It's being PROVEN right now -- in various states that LParty was never really for "uncontrolled legalization" of anything. Markets need boundaries and law to enhance commerce. And MANY states are finding this "regulation" very challenging. But it's no where NEAR the chaos and anarchy that LP opponents tried to make it out to be.

I agree with this part.

Guns are an enumerated right and drugs is a reserved right. Except that drugs regulation has been determined to be Constitutional and nullifies the "reserved" right.

It's a bureaucratic policy WHICH drugs end up on WHICH list of classification. Doesn't even NEED Congressional approval really. Just a long involved process to change the classification.

I understand how drugs are regulated. What I don't understand is how Congress can prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms, when the 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits it. Wouldn't that be a states issue? Alcohol needed a Constitutional Amendment to be prohibited. Why is that different? No one can explain.

Which leads me to the point. The Federal Government does lots of things it is not supposed to do. Most of that bullshit started with the commie, FDR.

The States stand by and willfully let it happen.

Wrong. SCOTUS has already decided in Heller v DC on the 2nd Amendment, and just refused a challenge to it. Scalia wrote the majority decision, of which the citizens have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, he also stuck with his originalist bent in citing the states have the absolute right to ban certain types of weapons, including military style rifles and semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, or any weapons the define as unusual. The court also ruled that states can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or open carrying of weapons in public.

Where did you get your law degree?

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't count.

And you have no place else to appeal that interpretation.

With the Fed encouragement of Militarizing the local police force, you'd face similar objections to some of the armored vehicles, chemical weapons and firearms now available to your local sheriff's office. I'll consider those PERSONAL restrictions in LIGHT of the "arms race" we're seeing for local law enforcement.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong. SCOTUS has already decided in Heller v DC on the 2nd Amendment, and just refused a challenge to it. Scalia wrote the majority decision, of which the citizens have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, he also stuck with his originalist bent in citing the states have the absolute right to ban certain types of weapons, including military style rifles and semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, or any weapons the define as unusual. The court also ruled that states can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons or open carrying of weapons in public.

Where did you get your law degree?

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't count.

And you have no place else to appeal that interpretation.

Apparently, I got my law degree at a better school than you.

STATES can prohibit. STATES can ban, not the Federal Government. You are making my argument for me. Go back and re-read it.

Again, why would we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol, but NOT need one to allow Congress to ban firearms or pot?

 

[francoHFW]

OP - no because the Democratic party is going to have a comeback. F*** the DNC.

 

[The Derp]

Why can the Fed. Gov. prohibit ownership of an assault rifle manufactured after 1986 through legislation, but needs a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol?

Why?

You'd have to ask a lawyer or a judge. I am neither.