Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

He’s With Her…

09 Tuesday Aug 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on He’s With Her…

Tags

, , , ,

This story really kind of speaks for itself: Orlando shooter’s father attends Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee, Seddique Mateen seen sitting right behind Clinton, WPTV, West Palm Beach.

He’s not just in attendance, he’s with her. “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” Mateen told the reporter.

I’m not implying that this Mateen is a terrorist, there’s no indication he is. It’s just a little uncanny. That makes two such sharia-esque Hillary supporters in the past few weeks. Odd.

This is also not a Trump endorsement. This is just news of the strange but true.

Hillary’s Tax Hikes: Fair Enough?

29 Friday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Hillary’s Tax Hikes: Fair Enough?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Tax increases and Democrats go together like sunrise and the east. It’s natural, predictable. It’s also disturbing. Like the meme says: “Taxation is theft.” Well, armed robbery really. The point is – they want your money and they always have a plan to get it.

fd850481b8da0d6a7e2953cb3ba902dc

Gary Varvel/Pinterest.

Americans for Tax Reform put together a list of some of Hillary’s proposed tax increases. I say “some of” because they’re will surely be more if she is elected. Here’s the majority of it:

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an “Exit Tax” and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign’s own figures.

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a “rock-solid” promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she’s going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase — $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase — $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase — Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading — Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn’t say.

This is, all of it, insane. The federal government already spends about $4Trillion per year – mostly on welfare and warfare (neither Constitutional). What could they possibly want or need with another $Trillion? And, the increases, even if they all became law, wouldn’t raise that much anyway. Taxes affect behavior. Increased taxation of income, for example, will cause people and businesses to curtail their incomes so as to avoid paying the tax. Thus, there is less money to steal … tax as a result.

Businesses (the big ones) don’t really pay their income taxes. They pass them on to you and you pay them through higher prices and fees. If $275 Billion is raised, it will be on your backs.

I love the “Fairness tax” idea. To them simplification always means paying more. Period. It reminds me of an old joke from the 90s – Bill Clinton’s simplified, revised tax form. It was just two lines in its entirety: 1) “How much did you make?” and 2) “Send it in.” So simple. So fair.

These are merely proposals. Most likely would not make it through Congress. Still, if the left has shown anything during the past century or so, it is that they get what they want – or, at least some of it. Right now, as usual, they want yours. Fair enough?

How To Lose An Election

25 Monday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on How To Lose An Election

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

As if the emails, fundraising, felony-dodging, Jew-bashing (was that just part of the Bernie bashing?), terrorist courting, and other shenanigans weren’t enough, a Hillary delegate pretty much admitted that the Democrats want an outright ban of firearms and a deletion of the Second Amendment. She also admitted they think the people are stupid.

“Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” the Clinton alternate delegate, Mary Bayer, told a Project Veritas reporter.

Instead, Bayer revealed, Democrats use “moderate” language when it comes to guns to obscure their true purpose, a complete elimination of the Second Amendment.

“You have to take that sort of moderate… ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!’” Bayer told the reporter, adding, “You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

At least she called it what it is – “sh!t” that’s going to p!ss everybody off. Just tell lies and the people will buy it…

For the record, I don’t think Hillary gives a flip about the Second Amendment one way or the other. There’s no bribe …er… nothing in it for her. It’s some of the carnival sideshow nuts in the party that keep pushing gun control (you know, “sh!t like that”).

oowrestling.com.

The DNC knows it is in deep trouble this cycle. Come November the diehards and the gun grabbers are in for a rude awakening – something akin to what the Trump supporters will know in a few years.

Just remember, the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to protect the people against this exact breed of political low-life.

Selective Incompetence

14 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Selective Incompetence

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maybe the FBI needs a man running around in a dress to be effective. Lately they’ve been off, either by design or by mishap.

The FBI had Hillary Clinton dead to rights for charges based on her felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793, transmitting or losing sensitive, secret information. FBI Director James Comey said she had been “extremely careless” but had not intended any harm. Intent is purposefully not an element of this particular crime so as to prosecute instances of extremely careless, negligent handling of classified material. That was a blatant case of selective (non) prosecution.

The feds sent Martha Stewart up the river for lying to their agents about issues tangential to their failing investigation into her investments. She too likely intended no harm. In fact, nothing in that witch-hunt remotely suggested any intent to cause anyone harm or that anyone was actually harmed. But, she lied. The feds and the cops can (do) lie to us all the time. That’s standard operating procedure. If we lie to them it’s a felony.

That is, unless you’re Omar Mateen. (Remember Mateen?) The FBI convinced Mateen to sign a statement admitting he had previously lied to agents. He wasn’t charged with lying. Nor was he charged with anything related to the FBI’s underlying investigation – terrorism. He simply was let go and the investigation concluded. “In the end, after a counter-terrorism investigation that stretched from May 2013 to March 2014, the agent and his supervisor concluded that Omar Mateen was not a threat and closed the case.”

joker-1431091-639x717

Yuk! Yuk! Picture: Florin Florea/Freeimages.com.

Mateen later carried out an act of terrorism. He murdered 49 people at the Pulse Club in Orlando (name ring a bell now?). He might not have been able to do so had he received the same scrutiny and treatment as Mrs. Stewart.

Was that selective non-prosecution? Or was it incompetence? Something else?

The above-linked LA Times story revealed the FBI used multiple informants in an effort to nail Mateen or involve him patsy-style in a false flag operation. None of it worked. Case closed. People dead.

Two things jump out at me regarding all of this. First, do not ever talk to or give statements (not oral and certainly not written) to law enforcement. Doing so only gives them grounds to charge you with something should all else fail (unless you’re a terrorist). Second, if this is how the FBI operates, maybe it’s time to get rid of the agency.

Enough of the selective incompetency and the incompetent selection.

Laws Are Like Spiders’ Webs

05 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.” – Anacharsis the Scythian (speaking with Solon).

So it is as it has always been. Today a woman with power and wealth once against tore to shreds American law. Hillary Clinton may have broken the law but she won’t be prosecuted according to the FBI’s recommendation issued today. The federal government has a law for everyone and everything – part of its scheme to maintain total control of the population, nothing more. People in charge of sensitive, classified information, like a Secretary of State, are expected to go above and beyond to maintain the integrity of the information entrusted to them.

Accordingly, the law places on such special people a higher standard of what is criminal misconduct. Congress eliminated the intent element regarding data transfers and breaches so that even incidents of negligence will qualify as offensive. In most circumstances a person accused of a crime must be proven to have intended to break a law or cause harm. They cannot or should not be charged if they did something accidental that resulted in a technical violation. In these special cases though the law is much more demanding. The information trustee is presumed to have the need and ability to protect the data even against foreseeable instances of negligence or even accidental unauthorized dissemination.

Hillary laughs at the weak and insignificant. Pinterest.

Today the FBI rewrote the law in order to avoid charging Hillary.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

  • National Review.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is information that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” [FBI Director] Comey told reporters in Washington, D.C., noting that the probe has found that the former secretary of state used several different email servers and numerous devices during her time in office.

  •  Politico.

The final say rests with the Department of Justice [SIC], parent of the FBI, which is under the control of Loretta Lynch (talk’n golf with President Clinton) and President Obama (Hillary’s boss and friend). Nothing will happen; case closed. On with the Democrat Party selection process and the general election. Even without criminal charges, do you want a President with a history of being “extremely careless” with classified information?

In any other investigation, right now an FBI agent would be applying before a judge for an arrest warrant. Anyone else would go to jail, go to trial, almost certainly be convicted of this crime, and probably do prison time. Well, anyone weak and insignificant would. Hillary is powerful, wealthy, special. Yesterday I put up a WSJ chart that shows (what I’ve talked about for years) that most people charged in federal court, who do not take a plea deal, end up convicted. And, almost all – the chart did not show this – almost all such persons enter into an agreement and plead guilty to something. Thus, those ensnared in federal prosecution (mostly for crimes the feds have no business prosecuting) are about 97-99% likely to be sentenced as guilty.

This is what we call a double standard. That’s what Anacharsis said to Solon 2,500+ years ago. It isn’t right. It isn’t justice. It is a clear sign that the real criminals are the agents of the state itself.

Lock and Load: Guns News Coast to Coast

24 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chelsea Clinton recently spoke to a group of communists and hoplophobes in Maryland about how her dear old Mom will use the Supreme Court to bring us a definitive ruling on gun control and some good old “common sense” regulation. Common sense – like what passed for common sense security in Benghazi. It seems like the court Mom should be concentrating on is the criminal court that may try her for those emails (just kidding, she’s in the Club).

Chelsea is much more attractive than her mommy and her voice isn’t nearly as irritating. Still, she marches to a similar drum. Her remarks were based in enough callousness and condescension to make her mother proud. Said the young Clinton: “With that greasy old wop [Justice Scalia] out of the way … mommy and I can take all the guns from those dumb Bible-thumpers and tax slaves…” Her line was cut short by a wild, howling chorus of cackles and mindless, violent-sounding chants; someone screamed “Allah Akbar!” See and hear for yourself.

Elsewhere, other fascists praised the actions of the territorial government of the Northern Mariana Islands and its institution of a $1,000 per item tax on gun sales. The Islands are one of those American territories that are only so that the natives may collect entitlement payments and people like Governor Ralph Torres can have jobs and a non-straw house to live in. I support independence for the Islands! As a free state they could enact whatever laws they choose. Gun control, cannibalism, anything they like. Our problem is that they want their law to be a model for the 50 States and other jurisdictions.

Chelsea’s Mom once supported a similar tax scheme. Maybe that’s the common sense definition she wants. The idea is that even if Herr Hillary’s Court can’t ban guns, the guns can be taxed out of the reach of most “ordinary” people. By the way, I’ve heard these islanders were the inspiration for the various headhunters on Gilligan’s Island.

Another Second Amendment end-around is to make financial transactions impossible for gun dealers and manufacturers. The Department of Justice [SIC] has a lovely program called Operation Choke Point. It is designed to make it rather difficult for risky or criminal enterprises to do banking business through the Federal Reserve’s risky, criminal organized banking business. The DOJ increasingly wants to lump gun makers into the same category with drug dealers, cartels (NOT to include the Fed), the mafia, and certain terrorist groups. They also want to include cigar companies. I’m sure military armament companies will have no problems cashing our tax checks and the State Department and CIA will keep bringing in those Cubans to give as gifts to the MIC reps at the trade shows (seen it myself). The rest of us be damned; Mommy knows best.

As is today, one doesn’t even need a gun to run afoul of the anti-freedom nut cases. A college student in south Alabama got in trouble with the campus rent-a-cop for wearing an empty holster during a political protest. The raincoat clad storm trooper even admitted the student did not violate any laws or rules but still cited him for causing a disturbance and threatened administrative action from the school. In south Alabama! Free people in Chicago and Boston are doomed.

Next door in Georgia we’re still waiting to see if Nathan “Captain Cave-in” Deal will sign or veto the State’s campus carry law. No word yet. No speculation either about the status of empty, as opposed to full, holsters in the Peach State. Peachy, Nathan, just peachy.

Now the good news. Some parts of America still somewhat resemble America regarding gun rights. Mississippi’s Governor just signed into law state-wide permitless carry of firearms. That means you’re free to be free. Mississippi joins a growing number of such unrestricted jurisdictions. These places tend to have lower crime rates than locales infected with that “common sense” nonsense. If you want safety and sanity, it may be time to move to a place where people are free to be free. Leave the rest of the continent to the cacklers and the headhunters. Or, molon labe!

permitless carry, mississippi permitless carry, concealed carry

Personal Defense World/NRA photo.

 

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).