Splitoff from libertarian party

Thomas L. Knapp said:
Darla,

You write:

"I certainly question the safety of anyone who is on a plane with 200 armed civilians. Have you see what has happened to people on planes lately?"

Stop and hold.

OK, since September 11, 2001, fliers have (for very good reasons) been nervous like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. What I was asserting, however, was that if 9/11 hadn't happened, they wouldn't have become that way. On September 10th, a flier who had a panic attack would have, as a very LAST RESORT, been physically restrained. SINCE 9/11, getting up to go use the bathroom at the wrong time might get you tackled or even shot.

And what I'm saying is that if any significant number of passengers had been carrying firearms -- as it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to do -- 9/11 would not have happened.

If the unconstitutional laws against carrying firearms on planes hadn't existed, I doubt that all 200 passengers on any given plane would have been carrying. I'd be surprised if 10 or 20 would have been. But 10 or 20 would have been more than sufficient to ensure that a bunch of assholes with boxcutters couldn't take over the plane and turn it into a missile. And the likelihood that a number of passengers would be armed would militate against said assholes even TRYING to do so.

The laws against carrying on planes were passed in the early 1970s after a couple of hijackings. They were a bad idea. They didn't work. Instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent criminals from being criminals, we should have instead encouraged law-abiding citizens who like to carry their pistols on their hips ... to DO SO, so that people like DB Cooper go rob liquor stores instead of hijacking planes. Hopefully the airlines would require that only frangible ammo be taken aboard, of course (even though explosive decompression is not nearly as big a risk as some people think).

Pre-9/11, I also don't think that someone who had a panic attack on board a plane would have been shot to death by some eager beaver with his .45 on him. I'm not sure that the toothpaste can be put back in the tube easily -- after five years of jumping at shadows, it might take awhile for people to calm back down -- but I just don't see that allowing carry on planes was a problem BEFORE 9/11. It was not a significant problem in the 25 years before it was outlawed, and outlawing it didn't solve the problem it was intended to solve.

Personally, I've only flown once since 9/11 (speech in New York against the Iraq war, and no time to drive or bus there) and didn't enjoy the experience much. I occasionally go out to the St. Louis airport and walk around to gauge the ambience, and that ambience still reminds me of a Third World police state hellhole.

As a side note, I doubt that I'd carry on board myself. I'm not much of a pistol shot, I don't know if an M-14 would fit in the carry-on size parameters, and I just am not into guns like I was when I was in the Marine Corps. But it wouldn't bother me if the guy sitting next to me was packing, as long as he wasn't dressed in a white shroud, waving an AK-47 and screaming "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Click to expand...

Its heard to know where to even start. I'll just make a list:

1) Handguns were not legal on commercial plane prior to the 1970s, as you state. They were in fact, banned. Its just that metal detectors and screenings weren't used to enforce the ban.

2) You don't have a consitutional right to wield a gun, on private property. In this case, a commercial jet owned by United or Continental.

3) 9/11, "could" have also been prevented if we had reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and armed air marshals. Like we largely have now. It doesn't require 20 or 50 armed passengers. In fact, that is inherently more dangerous than having armed pilots, reinforced cockpit doors, and air marshals.
 
3. The Boston Tea Party calls for an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana and hemp.

You gotta love that
 
Quoth Cypress:

"1) Handguns were not legal on commercial plane prior to the 1970s, as you state. They were in fact, banned. Its just that metal detectors and screenings weren't used to enforce the ban."

According to a documenary I saw on The History Channel, the federal law banning possession of firearms on aircraft was passed in 1972, after the DB Cooper incident. When I went to look for a citation of that, however, the earliest reference I found to a federal law banning boarding an airplane with a weapon was 49USC1472, dated 1982.

"2) You don't have a consitutional right to wield a gun, on private property. In this case, a commercial jet owned by United or Continental."

Irrelevant. Right now, it is not left to United or Continental to decide whether to let you carry a weapon on board one of their planes. The federal government took that decision away from them, and the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

"3) 9/11, 'could' have also been prevented if we had reinforced cockpit doors, armed pilots, and armed air marshals. Like we largely have now. It doesn't require 20 or 50 armed passengers. In fact, that is inherently more dangerous than having armed pilots, reinforced cockpit doors, and air marshals."

Yes, but also unnecessary if the government followed the Constitution and if the carriers chose to allow passengers to travel armed.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Honestly Knap...

You have a LOT to say. You're obviously very passionate about the subject while I am not. I'm not going to read all of your 10000 word posts in response to a little 10 letter statment that I think that splitoffs are bad in a pluarality winner-take-all world, and stop getting so pissed about that fact.
 
C'mon, now, Watermark

Watermark,

I'm sorry for pissing in your Post Toasties, but try to see it from my point of view. You make a post in which you:

a) Make an incorrect historical assertion about the Libertarian Party (although, in fairness, you did add in an "as far as I know");

b) Make a very debatable assertion as to the nature of what happened at the LP's convention in Portland; and

c) Call me and other Boston Tea Party members "idiots."

And then, when someone actually replies, you immediately retreat into "oh, if my assertions are actually going to be questioned, then screw it -- I don't have time to actually back up what I say."

If you don't want to argue or debate, that's fine, but let's be clear about what happened here. You took a cheap shot and now you're pissed off that you got called on it. Don't take cheap shots if you're not prepared to be shot back at.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to "punish" them for not be exactly what they wanted.
 
Damocles said:
I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to "punish" them for not be exactly what they wanted.
Click to expand...

I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

That's what ideological extremists and ideological purists do.

They aren't interested in building coalitions. They're interested in ideological purity. When if fact, coalitions are the only possible way to have any influence on public policy.
 
Darla said:
I think USC makes a good point when he questions whether it's true that 9/11 would not have happened if people were allowed to carry gun on board. I really think it's always far more difficult for us to say (though we pretend otherwise) what would or would not have happened "if". So I would not be ready to concede that.

And I just would not feel comfortable at all with armed passengers. Not before 9/11, or after it. You're not the only one who's not a good shot, but not everyone who owns a gun is going to admit that, if even to themselves. I think it's a bigger risk to have dozens of armed people running around, half or more who statisically will be fools, armed and thinking they're some kind of marshalls, air or otherwise.

I think you have a much better case when you argue that had our foreign policy been different, 9/11 could have been prevented. There are a thousand ifs though, if bush grasped what "bin laden determined to strike within the us meant" if someone in that adminstration had reconized that this Richard Clark guy might be worth listening to, and the list goes on. The fact is, it happened. The real bad shit is going to hit the fan sometimes in our lives, and that is a fact. No one wants it to, but for a variety of reasons, it's going to. It's how people react to these things, that makes the man, that makes the woman, that makes the people, that makes the nation.

And I'd say that our collective reactions and incredible willingness to give up rights, believe any bs story told to us, and bomb civilians all to save our own scared butts, doesnt' speak very highly of us so far. I think it would be a much better world if people could just grasp this simple fact: you are going to die. If not today, then tomorrow. If the terrorists don't get you, and they won't, McDonalds and those big macs you are scoffing down, is going to, but either way, you are going to die. Accept it and stop being willing to trade anything and anyone in order to prevent it. And I don't want to die, believe me. But, I'm going to. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money that it wont' be the terrorists who get me. And I live in NY. I mean, you have people who live in Idaho who are petrified of terrorists. Who are willing to sell out the constitituion because of terrorists. It's amazing.
Click to expand...


Very good post Darla, I fully agree.
 
Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?
I nkow a cheap shot (pun intended).
IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there.
If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?
 
Damocles,

You write:

"I think splitting up a Party, creating another one with much the same platform, putting forward candidates with much the same beliefs, takes votes from a candidate that people might get to know better...

I think that splitting off weakens the position of the LP and that often people do this to 'punish' them for not be exactly what they wanted."

Fair enough. By way of rebuttal:

I didn't found the Boston Tea Party to "split up" the LP. I founded it because I saw people leaving the LP, realized that they were going to do so whether they had any place else to go or not, and resolved to give them a place to go so that they could then productively decide what to do (including, as a possibility, reintegrating into the LP as a united caucus). An additional element is that I figured that if I didn't give them a place to go, someone else would -- and perhaps that someone else might be more interested in spending 40 years wandering around in the desert than in either reuniting with the LP or actually getting something done outside it.

I also don't think that it's possible to really weaken the position of the LP. I mean, c'mon. The LP's presidential ticket routinely polls a fraction of one percent. The LP has never elected a US Representative, a US Senator or a governor. The LP has elected a handful of state legislators, nearly all of them on "fusion" tickets where they also ran on "major party" ballot lines. And, finally, the LP has a few hundred local officials and appointees to its credit. I'm not trying to put the LP down here, but it's not like it has some huge record of success that the existence of the BTP will prevent it from building on.

Furthermore, if the "reformers" are correct, then the fact that a number of "purists" are doing BTP instead of LP stuff should HELP the LP rather than hurt it. After all, the "reformer" case is that it's the "purists" who have been holding the LP back, right? If the "reformers" are right, then we'll just be over in the corner masturbating, unable to secure ballot access or anything -- we'll just be out of the way, freeing the LP to get things done.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Thomas L. Knapp said:
I also don't think that it's possible to really weaken the position of the LP. I mean, c'mon. The LP's presidential ticket routinely polls a fraction of one percent. The LP has never elected a US Representative, a US Senator or a governor. The LP has elected a handful of state legislators, nearly all of them on "fusion" tickets where they also ran on "major party" ballot lines. And, finally, the LP has a few hundred local officials and appointees to its credit. I'm not trying to put the LP down here, but it's not like it has some huge record of success that the existence of the BTP will prevent it from building on.

Furthermore, if the "reformers" are correct, then the fact that a number of "purists" are doing BTP instead of LP stuff should HELP the LP rather than hurt it. After all, the "reformer" case is that it's the "purists" who have been holding the LP back, right? If the "reformers" are right, then we'll just be over in the corner masturbating, unable to secure ballot access or anything -- we'll just be out of the way, freeing the LP to get things done.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Click to expand...

LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives...

www.rlc.org
 
uscitizen, You write:

"Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?"

Hell -- it bugs me to live in the same country as Dick Cheney, armed or unarmed.

"IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there. If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "unqualified." In my experience, most people who carry guns are qualified to do so -- they take the act of carrying a gun seriously and educate themselves in gun safety and use. The exceptions to this -- the armed idiots -- usually seem to be exactly the people that make me WANT to have a gun with me. Of course, I may be prejudiced by my rural upbringing (in which carrying of guns was ubiquitous) and my Marine Corps experience (I had a secondary MOS as a marksmanship instructor).

And yes, the terrorists would have guns as well. But you're forgetting one thing: THEY ALREADY DO, or rather they have SOME kind of comparative weapon advantage to everyone around them. The idea is to erase that advantage. The terrorist technique is to attack the "soft spots" -- to create terror by finding and savaging people who can't defend themselves. We will always be terrorizable if we relegate our duty of self-defense to the government because, as much as it tries, the government can't be everywhere.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Damocles,

You write: "LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives..."

Fair enough as well. I'm critical of the RLC because I don't see them living up to their potential (and also because Republicans have always been a party of big government, even more so than Democrats), but if you can make it go, best of luck to you.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Well Tom in Army boot camp I saw some really ignorant people as far as guns are concerned, really dangerous for a while with them. I wondered if they would not kill me before the VC did.
I am also a helper to a man that conducts concealed carry classes and have my CC permit. Many of those students scare me and this is KY where everyone is rumored to have a gun :)
 
uscitizen said:
Tom would you want to fly on a plane with dick cheny carrying a gun ?
I nkow a cheap shot (pun intended).
IMO though only very stupid people would fly on a plane knowing that unqualified armed people were allowed on there.
If allowed wouldn't the terrorists have guns as well ?
Click to expand...

LOL

A full blown gun-battle on an airplane, between half a dozen terrorists commited to suicide, and twenty armed passengers, would be just as effective at bringing a plane down, as a shoe bomb would.
 
Thomas L. Knapp said:
Watermark,

I'm sorry for pissing in your Post Toasties, but try to see it from my point of view. You make a post in which you:

a) Make an incorrect historical assertion about the Libertarian Party (although, in fairness, you did add in an "as far as I know");

b) Make a very debatable assertion as to the nature of what happened at the LP's convention in Portland; and

c) Call me and other Boston Tea Party members "idiots."

And then, when someone actually replies, you immediately retreat into "oh, if my assertions are actually going to be questioned, then screw it -- I don't have time to actually back up what I say."

If you don't want to argue or debate, that's fine, but let's be clear about what happened here. You took a cheap shot and now you're pissed off that you got called on it. Don't take cheap shots if you're not prepared to be shot back at.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Click to expand...

Shot back at by who?

I was talking to a group of buddies and this guy just walked in and got angry at me.
 
Thomas L. Knapp said:
Damocles,

You write: "LOL. Fair enough... The LP has lost percentage of the vote every year, it truly isn't possible to limit it's power. This is why I join the Republican Liberty Caucus and work within a position of power to promote Libertarian objectives..."

Fair enough as well. I'm critical of the RLC because I don't see them living up to their potential (and also because Republicans have always been a party of big government, even more so than Democrats), but if you can make it go, best of luck to you.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Click to expand...

I personally prefer the Democratic Freedom Caucus... but they're much smaller. There is a chance that they'll get one person elected this year, but the RLC has like 6 or 20 members anyway.
 
Democratic Freedom Caucus

Watermark,

You write:

"I personally prefer the Democratic Freedom Caucus... but they're much smaller. There is a chance that they'll get one person elected this year, but the RLC has like 6 or 20 members anyway."

I prefer the DFC to the RLC too (I helped start its Missouri chapter). The Missouri DFC chair, Mike Bozarth, was recently elected to the St. Joseph city council.

And btw, I didn't walk in and get mad at you. I'm just keeping track of what's said about the Boston Tea Party, and responding. No hard feelings from my side!

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top