familydog
Member

That's not what I asked. Regardless, I find myself less cavalier about someone trying to steal my liberties. Politics ain't the MLB. Real harm to individuals and potentially irreversible damage to society is done by individuals and groups who just throw money at the state. Fair enough. You don't take it personally when people want to harm you or try to destroy what you stand for. I do. That's the difference. I didn't start out with a point. I was just curious about your position. Which is why I asked a question instead of typing an opinion column. This far in the discussion, I have my answer. You think the loss of liberties and freedoms can simply be reversed if enough people want it. You also assume enough people would want them reversed. I don't share those assumptions. Once liberty is lost, it's typically gone forever.

The entire history of this country is just a timeline of lost liberties. I have absolutely zero confidence that it will change any time soon.

No law has been passed that confiscated all privately owned firearms. That was not my question. My question pertained to changing existing laws. See your words that I quoted for a reminder. I try not to nit-pick. However, it is worth pointing out that Lysander Spooner wrote an entire book on why this was untrue.

Hypothetically, let's say millions of dollars were donated to pass a law that confiscated all privately held firearms. Would this be your response?

Imagine thinking that pointing out the left's hypocrisy will get you anywhere. Of course they have double standards. Of course they are hypocrites. However, they consistently win. But hey, when we are all starving in the leftist authoritarian gulags, at least we can say we stood on principle.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are examples of what the liberty movement needs. We need Congressmen who will not just stand on principle, but go on the offensive and fight. In politics, you need to sell people on an action. Promising to do nothing while in office is not a winning message. Imagine if MTG's fire and flamboyancy was merged with Massie's intelligence and principles.

The 2020 election was blatantly unconstitutional. Constitutionalists like Rand Paul just shrugged. They had every Constitutional right to object to what happened in Pennsylvania, for example, but chose to stay silent. As stated by Matt, all Rand had to do was vote no. It would literally cost him nothing. Besides, Ron Paul fought or voted no on everything. Was he acting stupid in Congress? In-fighting always increases when a side gains power. However, the left almost always sticks together in the end. I do not anticipate some great split.

Obviously you did not read what I typed. Otherwise you would know that I believe Rand wants wants to play both sides. In the end, he will please none.

If this was 2011 or 2012, then this statement would be sufficient. However, he has been in office for TEN years and has had zero significant effect on any public policy. When has logrolling ever worked in favor of liberty? Ron Paul has a legacy that will last long after his passing. Rand tried to split the baby of liberty and Establishment politics and has failed miserably at both. Subsequently he will have no legacy.

I mean, is there anything really left to say about Rand? He desperately wants the approval of the Establishment. The problem for him is that he will never get it. In a couple of decades he will be lucky to be a footnote in history.

The Establishment ran the heroic Steve King out of office. Perhaps its only a matter of time before it happens to others. There will be primary challenges coming.