I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Says the guy who backs the party that doesn't want to recognize 20% of the Bill of Rights.

Nobody's seriously screwing with the Second Amendment. It's a third rail like Roe v. Wade. Some stuff is just political suicide.

(But that doesn't mean you don't lie to your base about doing so.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Like I said....

No one here is bright enough, or in possession of adequate insider knowledge, to be as smug as you often are.

This does little to move the discussion forward. Every time I'm here I see about five or six opportunities to grab the low hanging fruit. I usually avoid it. You might want to drop about 30% of your attempted humor.

We already know you're smart and witty. Use the skill sets judiciously.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Please reread what I wrote, with focus on the part about Libertarians "informing the policies" of the entrenched two parties.

You and TM are both arguing against a point I've not offered.

I don't expect a Libertarian Party to succeed, or the two party system to end. I expect Libertarianism to infect the policies of both parties. I actually agree with TM's analysis that Paul had the right idea in trying to inject Libertarianism into the GOP. I'm advocating a variant of that. Bernie forced the Democrats to adopt more progressive policies. Libertarians can force the GOP to do the same. This can be done with a Libertarian running as a Republican, as the Independent Sanders did in running as a Democrat. It can also be done by getting Libertarian policies more exposure, and making Libertarians attractive to a GOP in dire need of new voters. Or both. These are not mutually exclusive strategies. In fact, they compliment each other.

It's simple. Make Libertarianism more popular/noticed, get people more accepting of its policies, and let the GOP either co-opt it or absorb some of its policies by necessity.

People are seeking alternatives. TM's right that most people like big govt, but people also like freedom. Tempered Libertarianism is an attractive option. And Trump had marginalized the biggest obstacle to it making gains within the GOP: the Religious Right.

I believe I can think of one example where a third party had this kind of influence on another party, and that was FDR's adoption of social security as an idea from the socialist party. But that was a discrete program that build broader support, a la Bernie's college plan, not a broad philosophical outlook.

I think Libertarian third parties do more to isolate Libertarianism and make it look kooky myself. Part of the problem for libertarianism is the number of kooky folks seeing it as an excuse for racism (I ought to be free to decide who sits at my lunch counter!); part of it is the number of silly white boys with Ayn Rand fetishes (the Creative Class!!). When Libertarianism gets its own party these folks really stand out because it's such a small little party. Kind of the way Jill Stein gives all Greens a bad name.

But, hey, it's your vote. And, hey, Gary, don't bogart that joint, pass it here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump has shown the Religious Right can be forced to vote for almost anything.

No, he's shown that they aren't at all motivated by religion, or conservatism, but are memory a coalition those who are afraid of people who they perceive as unlike them.

Conservative evangelicals became politicized to fight the integration of Bob Jones University, and that's still who they are, for the most part.

This allows the GOP tent to become more open to Libertarian policies which were previously deemed too socially tolerant.

Sure, as long as libertarian policies don't abide the gays, women, foreigners, icky sex or sinful drugs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I believe I can think of one example where a third party had this kind of influence on another party, and that was FDR's adoption of social security as an idea from the socialist party.

Well, here in Minnesota, the Farmer and Labor Party grew influential enough to wind up merging with the Democrats. That was a long time ago and only one state.

I think Libertarian third parties do more to isolate Libertarianism and make it look kooky myself.

I think not having to be in a coalition with other tend to extremism too. And extreme libertarianism is kooky stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Untrue. Libertarianism has enjoyed increased exposure and consideration for many years now. Credit that to Paul.

Trump has shown the Religious Right can be forced to vote for almost anything. This allows the GOP tent to become more open to Libertarian policies which were previously deemed too socially tolerant.

Um, dude. Your problem is that most Republican voters turn out to be completely uninterested in Libertarian ideas and policies. Just about all of Trump's divergences from the prior orthodoxy move the party away from where you want to be. No one is forcing anyone to vote for Trump -- he destroyed the other candidates in the primary. Trump voters are not interested in being socially tolerant. They want to restore traditional social hierarchies, and they want to use the government to do it. The notion that Trump has somehow opened the door to a GOP that is more open to Libertarian ideas is a delusion. If that's what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better, enjoy the placebo, but if I were a Libertarian, I would be looking to shore things up with the Democrats to try to get a little leverage. The notion that you get leverage from Gary Johnson is silly. The Mormons at least have a clue about how to play this game -- Libertarians, not at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody's seriously screwing with the Second Amendment. It's a third rail like Roe v. Wade. Some stuff is just political suicide.

(But that doesn't mean you don't lie to your base about doing so.)

After Heller, how can anyone screw with the Second Amendment?

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Says the woman whose (former) party can't even abide by the introductory clause of their favorite amendment.

Because I have no life, I draft faux-statutes when I am frustrated. Herewith a draft from some time ago. I pubish it promted by your reference to the introductory clause Scalia ignored.

The National Well Regulated Militia Act of 20__

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” and

Whereas, Americans justly consider their Second Amendment rights to be essential to the defense of liberty and freedom, and

Whereas, since the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Armed Forces of the United States, having been sorely tested and, despite a valiant effort by our men and women at arms, are in need of relief, and

Whereas, armed individuals, who may or may not be citizens of the United States, have committed acts in this nation which indicate the need for training and discipline in the use of weaponry, and

Whereas, individual legislation by the several states has not been effective to either prevent the illegal use of weaponry or to establish a well regulated militia, nor is it possible for any state to do so, given the ease of travel and transportation between the several states, and

Whereas, the Supreme Court has determined in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals are permitted to own weapons without regard to local or state law to the contrary,

Now therefore, the following statute shall be enacted by the Congress of the United States.

Section 1. The National Well Regulated Militia Act.

This act shall be known as the National Well Regulated Militia Act.

Section 2. Establishment of the National Militia.

(A) There is hereby created a National Militia.

(B) The National Militia shall report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the United States (hereafter, “Chairman”).

(C) The Chairman may, in his discretion, assign such other individuals of the Armed Forces of the United States as the Chairman deems necessary to the National Militia to supervise the National Militia .




Section 3. Membership in the National Militia.

(A) All persons within the United States owning or possessing any object falling within the definition of the term “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution are hereby, without further action on the part of any individual, members of the National Militia.

(B) All members of the National Militia shall, within 90 days of the enactment of this statute, report to the United States Post Office nearest their place of residence to enroll their names in the rolls of the National Militia.

(C) All persons who are not currently members of the National Militia pursuant to subsection (A) of this section, but who become members of the National Militia by virtue of new ownership or possession of “arms” shall report to the Post Office nearest their place of residence and enroll their names in the rolls of the National Militia within 3 days of becoming a member.

(D) Any member of the National Militia who transfers ownership or possession of arms may do so only to a member of the National Militia who has been enrolled pursuant to subsection (B) or (C).

(E) Any member of the National Militia who ceases to be a member by virtue of cessation of ownership or control of “arms” shall immediately inform the Chairman or the Chairman’s designee.

(F) Each member of the National Militia shall report for training, with all “arms” within their ownership or control, to the military facility designated for that member of the National Militia by the Chairman at a time and place determined by the Chairman.

Section 4. Service in the National Militia.

(A) All members of the National Militia shall serve two years active duty service at the discretion of the Chairman.

(B) Members of the National Militia who are concurrently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, although required to register as members of the National Militia, are exempt from the service described in subsection (A) of this section.

(C) Members of the National Militia who have served two years or more on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, although required to register as members of the National Militia, are exempt from the service described in subsection (A) of this section.


(D) All members of the National Militia shall be solely responsible for the “arms” owned or possessed by the respective members. Such arms must be secured, to the satisfaction of the Chairman, so as to absolutely prohibit the use of the arms by any person who has not complied with the provisions of Section 3 of this statute.


Section 5. Penalties.

(A) Failure by any member of the National Militia to comply with any registration or transfer of ownership provisions of Section 3 , or the service provisions of Section 4, shall be cause for immediate confiscation of “arms” in possession of the member, and such member shall be incarcerated for 10 years or until compliance is effected.

(B) Failure by any member of the National Militia to comply with the provisions of section 4(D) concerning securing arms in their ownership or possession shall be incarcerated for 10 years.

(C) Any member of the National Militia who fails to secure arms in their possession pursuant to section 4(D) shall be civilly liable to any person injured by use of the arms. The United States District Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit initiated pursuant to this subsection.

(D) The Bankruptcy Code is hereby amended to add a new section, to wit Section 523(a)(20) of the Bankruptcy Code, to exclude from discharge “any debt incurred pursuant to a judgment under subsection 5 (C) of the Well Regulated Militia Act.”


Section 6. Authority to Enact Regulations.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution contemplates a “well regulated militia”. The Chairman shall have the power to approve such regulations, consistent with this statute, as shall be appropriate to implement the provisions herein.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Cf. National Well Regulated Militia Act of 20__, Section 1 et seq., supra

You should read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia", which covers the history of the mitilia and the bearing of arms at the time of the founders.

This is pretty much how it was done. Except the Militia was often also limited to propertied white men.

They also came by periodically to inspect your arms, and make sure they were in good shape and ready to go if the Brits or Indians showed up or there was a slave revolt.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Says the woman whose (former) party can't even abide by the introductory clause of their favorite amendment.

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm pretty sure that the 1st Amendment is by far the favorite among my former ideological colleagues. To my knowledge, Congress has not made a law establishing a religion. The second amendment is mainly important as a means of ensuring the liberties of the first. Throw in a healthy dose of Texas "Come and take it!" history and I am sold! Hence my source of my not-so-secret desire for a Texit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"...and then he said, 'no one has more respect for women than I do.'"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm pretty sure that the 1st Amendment is by far the favorite among my former ideological colleagues. To my knowledge, Congress has not made a law establishing a religion. The second amendment is mainly important as a means of ensuring the liberties of the first. Throw in a healthy dose of Texas "Come and take it!" history and I am sold! Hence my source of my not-so-secret desire for a Texit.

I thought every establishment ruling out there enraged your Former Ideological Colleagues (or, as I shall call them, your FICs). Don't the FICs want nothing more than the 10 commandments in front of the court house, a nativity scene in every town square, and a prayer in every school?

And I know the FICs are all pissed that the 14th amendment, imposed by those damn northerners, made it apply to the states.

Somehow I don't think of FICs as big first amendment fans. At least if you're talking about the first amendment as applied in this country.

Maybe I'm wrong. Every time I try to figure out how these people think, I end up just saying oh, fic it. (Sorry Sebby, I'm a low-hanging fruit kind of guy!).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"...and then he said, 'no one has more respect for women than I do.'"

Please replace photo in your post with the above because you're screwing up the margins.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Please replace photo in your post with the above because you're screwing up the margins.

TM

You got it, boss.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Because I have no life, I draft faux-statutes when I am frustrated. Herewith a draft from some time ago. I pubish it promted by your reference to the introductory clause Scalia ignored.

[Statute]

If only.

TM