Winning the Libertarian vote

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    The bolded section seems to me to be the central issue. If it is not alive, it cannot be "murdered". We cannot define a single, objective point at which the fetus is or is not alive. Some believe at conception; for that matter, some seem to believe that even interfering with that conception is the equivalent of murder. Others say that birth is the defining point, but honestly, what is the difference between a fetus at 9:59 AM and a baby at 10:00 AM? Can we, with any level of integrity, say that that one minute makes such a objective difference? If we can, at what point during gestation is the right "one minute"? Can we truly say that the point life begins is the moment before he (the prospective father) puts on a condom?

    It all comes down to belief. I don't want laws that conform to nor restrict my life based on the beliefs of any one person or group of people. I want laws that exist to be based in objective fact, not subjective opinion.

    :twocents:

    Blessings,
    Bill

    I can't get over the feeling that a society which willingly allows its children to be killed for the convenience of the mother will be beset by other systemic ills that will lead to its destruction or dissolution. I wonder if the current indifference to human suffering evident in the spate of murder/suicides we're experiencing has its roots in this societal indifference to the fate of the unborn.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Murders happen every day, rapes happen every day, pillaging happens every day (in some part of the world or another) and I can tell you there is not a single place on the planet that all the above are not outlawed, yet they still happen. So just how the hell have any of those wonderful laws helped? Like I've said millions of times, we can't even get the 6 commandments that deal with relations with our neighbors right, so just how will adding lots more help?

    The Romans and Greeks were arguing these same points thousands of years ago, and we still haven't learned this one simple fact; MORE LAWS=LESS JUSTICE!!!!!!!

    Never made the argument they did. But unlike you, I didn't reach for the ridiculous and say that they also increased crime either.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I can't get over the feeling that a society which willingly allows its children to be killed for the convenience of the mother will be beset by other systemic ills that will lead to its destruction or dissolution. I wonder if the current indifference to human suffering evident in the spate of murder/suicides we're experiencing has its roots in this societal indifference to the fate of the unborn.

    Coming from the guy that just recently advocated genocide.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,057
    113
    Mitchell
    It all comes down to belief. I don't want laws that conform to nor restrict my life based on the beliefs of any one person or group of people. I want laws that exist to be based in objective fact, not subjective opinion.

    :twocents:

    Blessings,
    Bill

    It seems to me all laws are based on the aggregate opinion(s) of the governed. Additionally, even laws that are based on "objective facts" are weighed and the degree to which they are governed are based on the governed's opinion of their importance. The beauty of this country's constitution is that it allowed for the people of the states to debate issues, not already prescribed/directed by the constitution, and decide how they wished to govern them selves. Presumably, the people in one state would follow their beliefs, their conscience based on their world views, etc. in enacting laws that prescribed the society in which they wished to live.

    Not many people, I'd wager, want "somebody else" to tell them what to do. But for a group of people to live together, with all of their various self interests, they must agree to a set of rules, by which they'll agree to live among each other.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    17,573
    113
    Libertarian vote isn't worth pursuing

    Their own charts suggest that, if forced to choose one of the two parties, their vote would be equally split. Members of the LP speak in sound bites and refuse to take a principled stand when one is required nor define exactly what they are saying. If all sounds good for 5 minutes then the luster fades. If one has to be in a political party they give a home to some. I'd rather just call myself an independent.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    113,895
    113
    Michiana
    In any biological sense, life begins at conception. Are we talking when it could survive on its own? If we use that standard then at what point on the other end (people on life support of some sort) should we use some means of termination. I assume we will want to use the same standard.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    52,057
    113
    Mitchell
    In any biological sense, life begins at conception. Are we talking when it could survive on its own? If we use that standard then at what point on the other end (people on life support of some sort) should we use some means of termination. I assume we will want to use the same standard.

    If that were indeed the standard, the window for many would be miniscule.:laugh:
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Libertarian vote isn't worth pursuing

    Their own charts suggest that, if forced to choose one of the two parties, their vote would be equally split. Members of the LP speak in sound bites and refuse to take a principled stand when one is required nor define exactly what they are saying. If all sounds good for 5 minutes then the luster fades. If one has to be in a political party they give a home to some. I'd rather just call myself an independent.

    If Anybody But Obama isn't a principled stand, I don't know what is.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    17,573
    113
    If Anybody But Obama isn't a principled stand, I don't know what is.

    I don't think I ever took that stand, but its certainly not mine. I am a recovering libertarian from the last two elections who realized Ron Paul has it right.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    17,573
    113
    Yeah, ignore the libertarian vote in a close race. That makes a lot of sense from a tactical perspective. :rolleyes:

    Obama Leads Romney 52-45 In New Reason-Rupe Poll; In Three-Way Race Obama Leads Romney 49-42, Johnson Gets 6 Percent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

    Didn't say ignore them. Look at your own charts, you would split 50/50 anyway. You even espouse that here, Obama, Romney they are both the same. It is said all the time. Besides there is nothing I am going to say to change your mind. If I was ignoring them I wouldn't be "talking" to you.
     
    Top Bottom