Given Lord Acton’s observations I long thought that should the Libertarians officially come to power they would become willing participants in the system: corrupted and the very thing they were elected to combat. Now, it seems, their ascendancy isn’t even a requirement. John Bock wrote an intriguing piece suggesting the corruption has already happened. Or, at least, it has begun.

Today’s Libertarian Party is not the same party your father knew. The party known for promoting civil liberties, minimal government regulation (including ending drug laws), free market capitalism and the end of welfare seems to have wavered in its original mission. This election cycle, the Libertarians have enjoyed extra support with all of the early “Never Trump” talk. More people have looked into the Libertarians, but not everyone – especially gun owners – likes what they’ve found.

The article is gun-centered but so is freedom. There appears to be a lot to worry about.

I like the LP, theoretically, as an alternative to the current uni-party BS system. Many of my friends are Libertarians, many more libertarian with the capitalization. I never entertained joining the LP. I’ve never joined any party. Not a party person, so to speak.

Three problems have always specifically stood in between the LP and myself. First, there’s the aforementioned potential for decline. Second, the applications I have seen have a requirement that members declare they will not try to overthrow the government. I see no need for direct action as state’s usually do a marvelous job of committing suicide, unassisted; however, the option is nice to have in needed (see 1776, etc.). Third, I have found the LP, first and foremost, to be the party of pot.

I don’t use marijuana nor do I mind if you do. I think all drugs should be legal though I might never use them. But, it’s not my only issue. Mary Jane’s Stoned Green Grass Pot Party is not for me. I have a very funny story about my experience with the ravishing reefer enthusiasts but it can wait just a while.

Guns are another of my many issues so let’s return to Bock’s article.

Gary Johnson picked as his running mate a liberal Massachusetts gun-grabber. This makes the ticket no worse than the gun controllers offered up by the DNC and the GOP but it is no different. If there’s not a difference, what’s the point?

Johnson’s campaign in Delaware is chaired by Melissa Joan Hart, another celebrity telling you how to vote. She’s also a spokeswoman for Mom’s Demand Action (against you and your guns). She’s also easy on the eyes so I might let that one go, if it stood alone as an anomaly. It doesn’t.

Hmmmm…

It seems even the venerable Cato Institute, bastion of libertarian thought in D.C., is at least willing to compromise on gun control. It’s not that bad, but it is a compromise and one that makes no sense.

By Robert A. Levy

…1. Assault rifles.

…That said, some weapons can be banned. For example, automatic weapons have, for all practical purposes, been banned since 1934. But banning popular semi-automatic rifles, merely because they have a military-type attachment that doesn’t affect their lethality, makes no sense. The task, therefore, is to identify semi-automatic weapons that are not commonly used and not needed for lawful purposes. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went too far, but a more limited version might be viable.

2. High-capacity magazines.

…To my knowledge, no actual or potential (civilian) victim has fired dozens of rounds in self-defense. Perhaps that suggests a ban on magazines with more than, say, 20 rounds.

3. Universal background checks.

…It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey.

Robert Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Boch immediately follows with a story of a citizen who used a scary assault rifle and one or more high capacity magazines to fight off armed thugs, none of whom I am sure, cared the least about background checks.

And Levy and company miss the point entirely. If the government has powerful weapons, it follows the people should have them also – just in case. It has nothing to do with shooting deer or fighting criminals in theory. (Although in practice the weapons do a great job with both of those issues).

Maybe this is in keeping with the LP pledge to tolerate any government. Maybe it’s a cave-in in an attempt to garner the mad mom vote. Either way, it isn’t libertarian, American, nor wise.

Just to show no hard feelings towards Libertarians – Legalize the Weed!