Is It Time For Libertarian Gun Owners To Rethink Who They are Voting For ?

[ProBlue33]

The following videos shows that if libertarians value the their second amendment rights, they better.

The most telling comment in the video is when Clinton declares the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment.
The Clinton's already banned assault rifles once, all they need is to get those last few supreme court judges so then the supreme court can then vote "right" from the Clintons world view.
People were worried about Obama but he was all talk, Clinton will do it.

And all you gun owners posting to RPF know this be true, to ignore this is cognitive dissonance. Trump is a rude idiot, but he doesn't want to take your guns.




If you value your gun rights just listen to Rand this round.

Full Disclosure: I don't own a gun nor do I plan on getting or buying one anytime soon, so this issue doesn't matter to me personally, but I know to many Americans it's a huge issue, so my perspective comes from a place of I just want to protect the Constitution, because if the second amendment falls to the supreme courts, what is next? That's why I think Rand is more correct than his father this election round. Being in the Senate he can more accurately feel where things are headed, if they aren't stopped, even if he personally dislikes the person who would stop it.

[John F Kennedy III]

Trump is a Democrat. Never trust a Democrat.

[ProBlue33]

Trump "WAS" a Democrat. Never trust a Democrat.

There I fixed that for you

[RJ Liberty]

Check out this video interview from Gary Johnson where he points out that gun control makes us less safe. Gun discussion at 25:00.

[scm]

#nevereverthump

[scm]

There I fixed that for you

thump IS a DEMONkRAT and is now a fraud.

Fixed it for you.

[ProBlue33]

Yes Gary Johnson, but he won't be nominating any judges for the supreme court, will he ?

[dean.engelhardt]

Is It Time For Libertarian Gun Owners To Rethink Who They are Voting For ?

Very simple question to answer. HRC is all about gun control. Trump wants to deny 2nd amendment rights to people on the Terrorism Watch List without due process. Government can arbitrarily put anyone on the list. Gary Johnson stands with the individuals right to bears arms.

Johnson is the only candidate on all ballots that stands with the second amendment.

Here is a much better question: Is it time for Republican gun owners to rethink who they are voting for?

[RJ Liberty]

Yes Gary Johnson, but he won't be nominating any judges for the supreme court, will he ?

Sure he would. And his litmus test is Kelo vs. City of New London.

[RJ Liberty]

Very simple question to answer. HRC is all about gun control. Trump wants to deny 2nd amendment rights to people on the Terrorism Watch List without due process. Government can arbitrarily put anyone on the list. Gary Johnson stands with the individuals right to bears arms.

Johnson is the only candidate on all ballots that stands with the second amendment.

Here is a much better question: Is it time for Republican gun owners to rethink who they are voting for?

Good points, Dean. The thing about Trump's proposal to grab guns from people on the Terrorism Watch List is that it's really the same situation that we have with the government's No Fly List: people get on it, for whatever reason, but they can't get off it. There's no appeals process. The feds can just grab guns for any reason. Trump's proposal sucks. Johnson is against this proposal:

“Gov. Johnson believes Second Amendment rights are too fundamental to be denied without due process, and being put on a list arbitrarily by the government is certainly not due process,” Johnson campaign communications director Joe Hunter told The Daily Caller in a statement Wednesday.

[John F Kennedy III]

There I fixed that for you

Don't fix what isn't broken.

[Cleaner44]

Gary Johnson is irrelevant.

Trump will be nominating better Justices than Clinton would. This is just a simple fact. I feel bad for people that have such blind hatred of Trump that they can't see that.

• It doesn't mean that Trump is a great guy
• It doesn't mean that Trump wasn't once a Democrat
• It doesn't mean that Trump hasn't ever suggested gun control
• It doesn't mean that Trump is a libertarian
• It doesn't mean that Trump has nice hair
• It doesn't mean that Trump will do anything else useful

Trump simply will be doing a better job of protecting the 2nd Amendment as a Republican than his liberal Democrat opponent.

Hillary Clinton would 100% be nominating super pro gun control justices like only a moronic Democrat can. I am happy that she will lose because I believe my right to keep and bear arms is more important than the opinion of her SJW nut job supporters.

[Peace&Freedom]

The following videos shows that if libertarians value the their second amendment rights, they better.

The most telling comment in the video is when Clinton declares the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment.
The Clinton's already banned assault rifles once, all they need is to get those last few supreme court judges so then the supreme court can then vote "right" from the Clintons world view.
People were worried about Obama but he was all talk, Clinton will do it.

And all you gun owners posting to RPF know this be true, to ignore this is cognitive dissonance. Trump is a rude idiot, but he doesn't want to take your guns.


If you value your gun rights just listen to Rand this round.

Full Disclosure: I don't own a gun nor do I plan on getting or buying one anytime soon, so this issue doesn't matter to me personally, but I know to many Americans it's a huge issue, so my perspective comes from a place of I just want to protect the Constitution, because if the second amendment falls to the supreme courts, what is next? That's why I think Rand is more correct than his father this election round. Being in the Senate he can more accurately feel where things are headed, if they aren't stopped, even if he personally dislikes the person who would stop it.

This issue is not theoretical, as the choice, on this issue, is real. There is a case headed for the SC THIS YEAR, where five gun control freak votes WILL overturn Heller, which affirmed the historic or original intent meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as protecting the right of individual gun ownership. The intent of the overturn side will be to re-brand the amendment to mean it is only about recognizing the right of states to regulate militias. Once in place as a SC precedent, fortified by additional liberal justices Hillary would appoint, it's lights out for individual gun rights, and lights on for unlimited gun grabs:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...e-heller-2017/

[RJ Liberty]

Gary Johnson is irrelevant.

The MSM has treated Gary as irrelevant, but they treated Ron the same way. Johnson may win New Mexico (he's currently polling between 13% and 25% there), and he has some high poll number in Utah (up to 23%), Idaho (up to 19%), and Alaska (up to 19%). A Libertarian win of several states prevents either Clump or Trinton from reaching 270.

[phill4paul]

If you are worried that a S.C. Justus might take away your "gun rights" then you have already lost them.

[moostraks]

Yes, by all means, those serious about the right to bear arms should listen to this guy:

Basically, they will, if they see — you know, they are proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they will look, and they will take the gun away.

They will stop, they will frisk, and they will take the gun away, and they don’t have anything to shoot with.

The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order, and they're afraid for their jobs, they're afraid of the mistreatment they get, and I'm telling you that not only, me speaking, minorities all over the country, they respect the police of this country and we have to give them more respect.

They can't act. They can't act. They're afraid for losing their pension, their job. They don't know what to do. And I deal with them all the time. We have to give great respect, far greater than we are right now, to our really fantastic police.

Well, they do [see police brutality]. And, you know, they sue. Everybody sues, right? They see excessive -- I mean, they go out, they sue. We have so much litigation -- I see the courts, I see what they're doing. They sue, and you know what? We don't want excessive force. But at what point -- you know, either you're going to have a police force that can do its job...

I was just up in Manchester, I met with the police officers yesterday. Tremendous people. They love the area, they love the people, they love all the people. They want to do their job. And you're going to have abuse and you're going to have problems, and you've got to solve the problems and you have to weed out the problems. But the police in this country are absolutely amazing people.

Donald Trump said on Monday that, if elected president, he would give back to police departments the controversial military equipment the Obama administration forced them to return.

Speaking with police officers in Ohio, the Republican presidential nominee indicated he would reverse a recall of tanks, heavy weaponry and other equipment carried out by the federal government after the 2014 unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

During discussions at a fraternal order of police lodge in Akron, Trump was asked by one questioner if he would return “military equipment” to law enforcement, according to a pool reporter who observed the event.

“Yes, I would,” said Trump, who added that the current situation facing law enforcement was “ridiculous”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ice?CMP=twt_gu

[dean.engelhardt]

Gary Johnson is irrelevant.

Trump will be nominating better Justices than Clinton would. This is just a simple fact. I feel bad for people that have such blind hatred of Trump that they can't see that.

• It doesn't mean that Trump is a great guy
• It doesn't mean that Trump wasn't once a Democrat
• It doesn't mean that Trump hasn't ever suggested gun control
• It doesn't mean that Trump is a libertarian
• It doesn't mean that Trump has nice hair
• It doesn't mean that Trump will do anything else useful

Trump simply will be doing a better job of protecting the 2nd Amendment as a Republican than his liberal Democrat opponent.

Hillary Clinton would 100% be nominating super pro gun control justices like only a moronic Democrat can. I am happy that she will lose because I believe my right to keep and bear arms is more important than the opinion of her SJW nut job supporters.

This is a major argument of voting for the lesser of two evil. Getting masses of people to elect a president that will violate individuals rights because they will not do it as badly as the other candidate. This is how we ended up with a false choice between two New York liberals; there really is no choice between the two. They are effectively the same. Both Trump and Clinton want to use the federal government to diminish my right to bear arms. I do not care which one is more aggressive about it. Neither are worthy of my vote.

[Anti Federalist]

If you are worried that a S.C. Justus might take away your "gun rights" then you have already lost them.

Thus endeth this thread.

And that goes for all other rights as well.

[JK/SEA]

paranoia will destroy ya.

so, apparently i would be better off hoping hillary wins is that it?...because trump is worse than hillary....

deluded.

[JK/SEA]

Don't fix what isn't broken.

glad you're happy with status quo.

i'm not.

[CCTelander]

If you are worried that a S.C. Justus might take away your "gun rights" then you have already lost them.

Yeah, well, if gun owners actually possessed the courage of the convictions they claim to hold, or any stones at all really, victim disarmament (gun conrol) would decades ago have been burried so deep it would take several mellenia for it to resurface.

[kpitcher]

Yes Gary Johnson, but he won't be nominating any judges for the supreme court, will he ?

If people continue to believe we should choose flavor A or flavor B of the same party and don't vote their conscious, then you're correct.

[moostraks]

paranoia will destroy ya.

so, apparently i would be better off hoping hillary wins is that it?...because trump is worse than hillary....

deluded.

Paranoia will destroy you. Driving people into Trump's arms based on paranoia would be a bad idea considering what he espouses. There are other options.

[JK/SEA]

Paranoia will destroy you. Driving people into Trump's arms based on paranoia would be a bad idea considering what he espouses. There are other options.

hmmm...well at the moment, we ARE out of options, until another candidate like Ron Paul rises up.

[moostraks]

hmmm...well at the moment, we ARE out of options, until another candidate like Ron Paul rises up.

Never out of options. Just have to turn the board around and out think the opponent. Besides, voting was always only a portion of the equation when it comes to ensuring the exercise of any right one holds valuable and necessary.

[Cleaner44]

This is a major argument of voting for the lesser of two evil. Getting masses of people to elect a president that will violate individuals rights because they will not do it as badly as the other candidate. This is how we ended up with a false choice between two New York liberals; there really is no choice between the two. They are effectively the same. Both Trump and Clinton want to use the federal government to diminish my right to bear arms. I do not care which one is more aggressive about it. Neither are worthy of my vote.

Then don't vote for either one of them. I don't think Gary Johnson is worthy of my vote either. Unfortunately there is no stopping the fact that 1 of 2 liberals from NY will be our next president. All I can say is that I prefer Trump of Clinton and some supreme court justices are better than others in my opinion. I feel very confident that Clinton would nominate the worst of the worst.

[Cleaner44]

The MSM has treated Gary as irrelevant, but they treated Ron the same way. Johnson may win New Mexico (he's currently polling between 13% and 25% there), and he has some high poll number in Utah (up to 23%), Idaho (up to 19%), and Alaska (up to 19%). A Libertarian win of several states prevents either Clump or Trinton from reaching 270.

Let's run this pipe dream out. If Gary Johnson prevented either from reaching 270, what then? Are you hoping that Ron Paul would be appointed as our next president?

[ProBlue33]

I was never worried about Obama doing anything about guns it was all talk, Clinton on the other has a track record of actually doing it, it's one of her fundamental driving forces. It is not fear mongering, it is the reality of her idealogical way of governing. That's why when everybody was voting third party and writing in Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 I thought sure why not, in 2008 McCain was war hawk loser, and in 2012 Romney was slimy traitor who disrespected Ron Paul at the highest level. Didn't care, knew nothing would happen. This round is different, and you can feel it.
In 2000 Trump said "I generally oppose gun control" not much has changed in those 16 years, I think he is more into guns as a means to protect against rogue terrorists now.
His position on guns has changed, he is stronger for them now.

[RJ Liberty]

Let's run this pipe dream out. If Gary Johnson prevented either from reaching 270, what then? Are you hoping that Ron Paul would be appointed as our next president?

Now that would be cool, but no.

The House of Representatives has to choose from the top three vote-getters. It's the current House that votes, not a new House. The House is controlled by the Republicans, and House members Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Fred Upton (MI), Richard Hanna (NY), Charlie Dent (PA), Adam Kinzinger (IL), Bob Dold (IL), Mike Coffman (CO), Scott Rigell (VA), Dave Reichert (WA), Reid Ribble (WI), and Mac Thornberry (TX) either publicly oppose Trump, fully support Gary, or are on the fence. The House Democrats won't ever support Trump, but some of them could vote for Gary. It's a by-state vote, so the dynamics are slightly different than a straight vote.

[Peace&Freedom]

If you are worried that a S.C. Justus might take away your "gun rights" then you have already lost them.

The issue is not the SC taking rights away (they can't). The issue is the government taking their protection or recognition of those rights away. A SC ruling to overturn Heller will give the state cover to do just that.