Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Did William Kostric Threaten Libertarianism With That Gun?
Speaking of political distancing from the fringe, the gun-packing, Ron Paul-supporting, Hit&Run-commenting town hall attendee William Kostric gets a two-handed rhetorical shove away from libertarianism by Justin Raimondo, over at Chronicles Magazine. Excerpt:
So as to make his intent unmistakable, he carried a sign that day which proclaimed it to all and sundry: "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!"
This was widely interpreted as a not-so-subtle threat to the President, personally. And I fail to see how it could be understood in any other way. To carry that sign in one hand, and a gun in the other, is a declaration of war. A war, I hasten to add, that Kostric and his fellow revolutionaries cannot possibly hope to win. [...]
Typically, some in the libertarian movement hailed Kostric as a hero. While we've had more than our our share of crackpots and scamsters in the libertarian movement, never have we had a significant organized grouping that openly advocated violence, or even flirted with it—at least, not until now. [...]
With [Ron] Paul appearing to endorse this sort of behavior—or, at least, not oppose it—he is encouraging more of the same. And the dangers of that are many, and ominous:
1) It sets up the libertarian movement for government surveillance and infiltration. Under the PATRIOT Act, the government has the "right" to spy on anyone suspected of planning illegal acts, and any act of civil disobedience can be construed as "terrorism."
2) It marginalizes the libertarian movement, and gives the professional "extremist"-hunters as well as the Obama-ite left a reason to tie a seemingly violent "fringe" with individuals and groups working to preserve what remains of our economic and civil liberties.
3) It is bound to end in a violent incident: Indeed, there have already been confrontations between the "tea-baggers" and union thugs at those town-hall meetings. It is only a matter of time before a gun goes off, either by accident or by intention.
Much more where that came from here.
Citizen Nothing|9.4.09 @ 10:16AM|#
I think libertarianism would be just fine without William
Kostric and Justin Raimondo.
But, hell, I'll take any fellow-travelers I can get.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:17AM|#
It is bound to end in a violent incident: Indeed, there have
already been confrontations between the "tea-baggers" and union
thugs at those town-hall meetings. It is only a matter of time
before a gun goes off, either by accident or by
intention.
Due to the confrontations between tax protesters and British
soldiers - this is bound to end in a violent incident. It is only a
matter of time before a gun goes off, either by accident or by
intention, and five Bostonians will die. -- Justin Raimondo, Feb
1770
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:17AM|#
From wikipedia, for anyone who doesnt get my post:
The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of
five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the
legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the
British colonies in America, which culminated in the American
Revolution. A tense situation because of a heavy British military
presence in Boston boiled over to incite brawls between soldiers
and civilians and eventually led to troops discharging their
muskets after being attacked by a rioting crowd. Three civilians
were killed at the scene of the shooting, and two died after the
incident.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 10:18AM|#
I think we got it robc. It's fine to encourage violent overthrow of a democratically elected government because you don't like its policies.
Citizen Nothing|9.4.09 @ 10:20AM|#
The best thing we got going for us are folks like Tony. Keep up the good work, dude.
Xeones|9.4.09 @ 10:20AM|#
It marginalizes the libertarian movement.
I too snickered a little, then wished for drink.
Tony, shut the fuck up.
Voton|9.4.09 @ 10:21AM|#
It marginalizes the libertarian movement, and gives the
professional "extremist"-hunters as well as the Obama-ite left a
reason to tie a seemingly violent "fringe" with individuals and
groups working to preserve what remains of our economic and civil
liberties.
Liberals "marginalize" everyone who ever so slightly deviates from
their opinions
as "extremists." Did Kostric do anything illegal? No, so STFU.
WWJGD|9.4.09 @ 10:21AM|#
It's fine to encourage violent overthrow of a democratically
elected government because you don't like its policies.
I really can't disagree with this. Of course I'm having a "Hoist
the black flag and slit throats" week.
Warty|9.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
It's fine to encourage violent overthrow of a democratically
elected government because you don't like its policies.
Well, sure. What's special about democracy?
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
Tony,
It's fine to encourage violent overthrow of a democratically
elected government because you don't like its policies.
Since the british parliament was democratically elected, I guess I
agree with you.
First time for everything.
Thomas Jefferson|9.4.09 @ 10:23AM|#
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 10:24AM|#
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Warty|9.4.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Was Parliament democratically elected at that time, robc? I thought it wasn't really for at least a few generations.
Hugh Akston|9.4.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Some people in the Civil Rights movement advocated violence to
achieve its ends, some people practiced it. Its rank-and-file were
subject to surveillance, harassment, and arrest. It didn't stop
them, it won't stop us.
There are fruit loops at the fringes of any movement. That doesn't
invalidate the core goals of the movement either conceptually or
perceptually.
Citizen Nothing|9.4.09 @ 10:26AM|#
You know, it's kind of fun to rant about revolution. But the
fact of the matter is, when it comes, it won't be one that anyone
here likes.
Except for maybe Tony.
Fortunately, I don't think I'll see one in my lifetime.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Was Parliament democratically elected at that time,
robc?
Newton was democratically elected to the House of Commons.
Parliament had been democratic for a long, long time before
1770.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
This was widely interpreted as a not-so-subtle threat to the
President, personally.
Only a truly paranoid idiot could come to this conclusion.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
CN,
But the fact of the matter is, when it comes, it won't be one
that anyone here likes.
Historically, the odds are that your are correct. And that is why
we are generally "disposed to suffer". But there comes a breaking
point and as long as you have a chance....
Tony|9.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Because, let me guess, no no I got this... torture, denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, a phony war--not quite enough abuse to warrant overthrow of the government. But a public healthcare option? TYRANNY!!!
|9.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Rights not used are rights lost. The problem is that few
exercise their right to open possession of personal arms so Kostric
is odd man out.
Raimondo is wetting his bed for nothing; as for damaging the
libertarian brand; doubtful since after all these years
libertarians haven't broken through to even 'permanent gadfly'
status in legislative bodies.
WWJGD|9.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
With [Ron] Paul appearing to endorse this sort of
behavior-or, at least, not oppose it-he is encouraging more of the
same.
If I've learned anything from being a Paul supporter and just what
I've read, it's that he really operates on a different mindset than
most when it comes to these "in his name" issues. He doesn't see
the need to comment on everything he can, he doesn't see a purpose
voicing his support or opposition to things that aren't laws on his
desk (Some exceptions apply). I think it's unfair to run to him and
demand a statement every time someone who supported him does
something. The guy just doesn't have the ego for that.
Also, inb4 Paultard/Truther
WWJGD|9.4.09 @ 10:30AM|#
Because, let me guess, no no I got this... torture, denial
of due process, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, a phony
war--not quite enough abuse to warrant overthrow of the government.
But a public healthcare option? TYRANNY!!!
Oh for fuck's sake. WE ARE NOT
REPUBLICANS!
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 10:30AM|#
Because, let me guess, no no I got this... torture, denial
of due process, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, a phony
war--not quite enough abuse to warrant overthrow of the government.
But a public healthcare option?
A couple of years ago, I told my extremely conservative parents
that George Bush should be impeached for warrantless
wiretapping.
|9.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#
It is bound to end in a violent incident: Indeed, there have
already been confrontations between the "tea-baggers" and union
thugs at those town-hall meetings.
Slow down, there, buddy. Before you get your lace panties all in a
bunch, you might want to stop and think about three things:
(1) There already has been violence at these meetings, none of it
initiated by the protestors, armed or not.
(2) The presence of armed citizens at protests might actually keep
the union thugs in line, thus reducing violence.
(2) Self-defense is a virtue; the use of violence to end violent
aggression is a good thing.
BTW, by characterizing the protestors as teabaggers, you let us all
know that you are not to be taken seriously.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#
Warty,
From wikipedia (ellipses are mine):
The British House of Commons was created to serve as the
political power base and voice for the free subjects of the realm,
originally selected from the business and merchant classes of each
local area to represent all the Sovereign's subjects who were not
Lords Temporal or Spiritual...
The name of the House does not originate from the fact that it
represented the 'common' people, but rather from the fact that the
constituencies represented were based on the commons (land areas)
of England. The House of Commons was thus elected ...
Throughout their histories, the British and Canadian Houses of
Commons have become increasingly representative, as suffrage has
been extended. Both bodies are now elected via universal adult
suffrage.
So, some sort of democractic form from the beginning.
Citizen Nothing|9.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Bush was a piker compared to Woodrow Wilson.
And Obama is a piker compared to FDR.
I think we'll end up surviving both administrations.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Tony,
I got this... torture, denial of due process, extraordinary
rendition, wiretapping, a phony war--not quite enough abuse to
warrant overthrow of the government.
Listen dumbass, were your reading this site a few years ago?
Nothing has changed around here.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:34AM|#
I think we'll end up surviving both
administrations.
The problem is no one unwound Wilson or FDR. The pikers are
standing on the shoulders of giants.
|9.4.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Clearly being Ayn Rand novel carrying weenies has gotten Libertarianism so far. maybe it is time for a different approach.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:36AM|#
Warty,
Nah, commons was fully democratic, just with limited suffrage.
:)
The key is that Commons surpassed Lords in importance somewhere
along the way.
|9.4.09 @ 10:37AM|#
yo, fuck Justin Raimondo. This is the guy who posted screeds on
his blog about how Reason sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign.
Speaking of which, he doesn't think that Ron Paul's name being
plastered all over a newsletter which called MLK a "gay pedophile"
and complained about "fleet footed niggers" in Washington should
put a black mark on Paul's record; but he thinks him showing up at
the same event as a guy with a gun and a sign with a Jefferson
quote on it puts a black mark on libertarianism in general? Does.
Not. Compute.
T|9.4.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Raimondo is wetting his bed for nothing
Gee, there's a shock. Raimondo spends a majority of his time
whining about what the other libertarians are doing wrong. If it
weren't for various flavors of "No True Scotsman" his website would
be about 5 lines long.
This is more of the same. I heard this exact same argument from the
RKBA crowd, too. We shouldn't exercise our rights because it makes
the pinks and the normals nervous and it isn't doing us any good.
Bullshit. Every time somebody like Kostric shows up and nothing
happens, it helps us. The more times it happens, sooner or later it
ceases to be news. It makes us look like harmless eccentrics.
Then, when the secret instructions for revolution come, we'll take
them all by surprise.
Xeones|9.4.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Tony, you might try pulling your head out of your ass long enough to note that the abuses of the Obama administration are ADDITIONAL TO the abuses of the Bush administration and all previous administrations. It's called the breaking point, you airheaded shitcock, and people are getting a lot closer to it.
Citizen Nothing|9.4.09 @ 10:39AM|#
robc,
I must admit that my "breaking point" is nowhere on the horizon.
Again, from a historical standpoint, this has all happened before,
and will all happen again -- assuming the fucking Cylons don't kill
us all, or that the LP doesn't take control, which is less likely
than the thing with the Cylons.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Listen dumbass, were your reading this site a few years ago? Nothing has changed around here.
So the only reason you didn't get your tea party started then was
because you're impotent? Good, I was getting worried. I guess I
don't remember seeing morons with guns at Bush events because he
had you carted off for so much as wearing the wrong lapel pin.
|9.4.09 @ 10:41AM|#
I haven't read any of the comments yet. Why am I suspecting much
unbridled insanity will be contained in them?
Oh yeah, this is H&R.
:-)
Warty|9.4.09 @ 10:44AM|#
I love how Tony assumes there's a one-to-one correspondence
between H&R posters and tea partiers.
Shut the fuck up, Tony.
TallDave|9.4.09 @ 10:45AM|#
I tried to come up with some kind of defense, but all I've got
is "Well, he's probably a harmless nut."
Let's send Tony over to bite his trigger finger off.
PC|9.4.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Ok so Raimondo thinks the libertarian "movement" is ill served
by a guy who uses his right to carry while protesting on private
property near an area where the President will eventually be
speaking...later on in the day, but condemning and wanting to know
the source of article upon article of racist and jewish conspiracy
content that bears the name of the biggest libertarian figure in
recent memory, during the zenith of his popularity, is somehow
pedantic.
I guess if William Kostric was sent there by Lew Rockwell Raimondo
would be cool with it, even if he shot the whole place up.
Damnit Kostric, if you could just give Raimondo a few extra site
hits you would be a fearless fighter for first and second amendment
rights.
Hugh Akston|9.4.09 @ 10:51AM|#
So the only reason you didn't get your tea party started
then was because you're impotent? Good, I was getting worried. I
guess I don't remember seeing morons with guns at Bush events
because he had you carted off for so much as wearing the wrong
lapel pin.
Tony,
1) Shut the fuck up.
2) The groundswell we are seeing now is the result of a policy
change that will affect the people who are protesting personally.
When the government engages in nefarious foreign adventurism or
denies the rights of an unpopular minority, people of good
conscience denounce it, but Joe Six Pack could care less. When you
come after J6Ps wallet, you'll see the shit hit the fan. What do
you think the last revolution this country had was about?
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:53AM|#
CN,
Again, from a historical standpoint, this has all happened
before
No it hasnt. Bush and Obama are adding on to the historical
shit.
PicassoIII|9.4.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Dunno,
Gotta agree with Justin on this ... mostly.
Very correct on this being an 'out of context' combo. Enforces Ron
Paul/libertarians = gun nuts/militia to the unwashed masses.
He did put the tea-baggers comment in quotations aping the liberal
MSM.
A little off base that Rep Paul needs to 'counter' this strongly
though.
It's sort of like Michael Medved telling the 'birthers' they need
to STFU because it makes some conservatives look like
'cranks'.
Gotta tell ya, i roll my eyes whenever some pundit includes, and
emphasizes Obama's middle name. That's pretty cranky too.
creech|9.4.09 @ 10:54AM|#
As long as we still have the ballot box, we don't need to resort
to the cartridge box. Bostonians, circa 1770, had no such
option.
Raimondo has a long long tenure in the libertarian movement. Can
anyone cite quotes from his past that are surprisingly belligerent
towards the government? Seems to me he was a black flag anarchist
at one time, no? Maybe he's just mellowed out.
robc|9.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Tony,
Did you not see anti-war protests during the last
administration.
We supported them in the same way we support the tea-parties.
Generally from afar and with lots of snark, but it is support, all
the same.
PC|9.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
"What do you think the last revolution this country had was
about?"
Taxes much lower than we are currently paying.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Tony doesn't deserve an answer, but I'll give it to him
anyway.
Libertarianism is about maintaining personal autonomy.
Progressivism is all about giving up personal autonomy "for the
good of everyone".
The evils of the Bush administration hacked away at personal
autonomy mostly by whacking off big chunks of protection from
unwarranted search, The average guy or gal on the street was
unlikely to see a direct impact on his or her life unless he or she
got caught up in the drag net.
The evil of health care reform is intended to impact each and every
one of us a soon as the government can crank up the machinery. This
results in a direct impact to the autonomy of everyone right
now.
Hence, people carrying signs and in some cases carrying guns.
|9.4.09 @ 10:56AM|#
I must admit that my "breaking point" is nowhere on the
horizon.
Mine, too. Of course, the horizon I'm talking about is the one
behind me, not the one in front of me.
Russ 2000|9.4.09 @ 10:57AM|#
To carry that sign in one hand, and a gun in the other, is a
declaration of war.
Raimondo has such anti-war tunnel vision that his thinking has
ceased.
And the gun is in a holster, not in his hand. Perhaps Raimondo
should switch from cigarettes to pot because he apparently has
glaucoma, too.
|9.4.09 @ 10:58AM|#
I wear my t-shirt w the Mencken quote ("Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.") Does that make me dangerous?
|9.4.09 @ 10:59AM|#
I carry a gun 24/7, ever since my neighbors and their two
beautiful daughters were brutally murdered in their own home by
criminal animals.
I will not disarm unless required to by statute (court buildings,
schools during school hours or functions, etc).
Don't see any reason to disarm at a public meeting; in fact, based
on the behaviour of many of the union idiots, I have more reason to
be armed.
If I am ever attacked by a group of people that put me "in fear for
my life" I am justified in using deadly force to stop the
threat.
And I will.
TallDave|9.4.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Oh, oh, oh --
this is too good:
Raimondo's website consistently published propaganda generated
by Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former CAIR employee now doing a
20-year federal sentence for terrorist activities. Recently, one of
Royer's associates, Ahmad Omar Abu Ali, was charged with plotting
to assassinate President Bush in collaboration with
al-Qaida.
So, he's fine with publishing Randall Royer and his merry band of
Bush-assassins, but a guy with a sign at a rally alluding to a
1700s statement from Thomas Jefferson about resisting dictatorship
is dangerous?
Warty|9.4.09 @ 11:01AM|#
I seem to remember lots of posts by Raimondo in 2001 about how the jooos brought down the WTC, for what that's worth.
|9.4.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Oh, by the way.
I have spoken many times in front of my city council while openly
carrying firearms. Usually, I am disagreeing with the latest
proposed tax increase. Never been arrested, never even been
questioned.
T|9.4.09 @ 11:08AM|#
So, he's fine with publishing Randall Royer and his merry
band of Bush-assassins, but a guy with a sign at a rally alluding
to a 1700s statement from Thomas Jefferson about resisting
dictatorship is dangerous?
Well, yes, because Raimondo disagrees with Kostric. The benchmark
for libertarianism in Raimondo's head is how much you agree with
Raimondo.
|9.4.09 @ 11:10AM|#
I don't think it's worth the effort to discuss Raimondo (or Tony, for that matter) but I do think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about the image that a guy like Kostric portrays and how it impacts the libertarian movement. I get where he's coming from, and I'm sure many others here do as well, but certainly it has at the very least the potential to drive away more moderate supporters of liberty, disaffected by the two major parties, who may otherwise be interested in supporting libertarian causes.
hmm|9.4.09 @ 11:12AM|#
There is a lot of really fuzzy logic and misrepresentation for
the sake of the story in his article.
The man was there not to debate. He stated he didn't want the
policy implemented. He was never a part of the debate he was a part
of the protest to oppose the legislation. Two distinctly different
things.
The paragraph or two attacking associations should be familiar to
anyone who has ever uttered the "l" word in public or unfamiliar
social settings. Kind of funny such a superficial tirade would come
from a self described libertarian that left the LP for oddly
similar reasons to start his own political group. Pot, this is
Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.
I do like the carrying a gun endangers the 2nd argument. You know
who generally makes comments like that? The same people that say
things like, "I think the second amendment grants the right to own
a gun, but..." Oddly, or not, comments like this are common among
LEO.
For the record, if I ever get 15 minutes of fame, I think it's okay
to protect your property with force. Even if that property is a
silly plant. The whole drug dealer firing on cops hyperbole is a
joke. I guess he supports the drug war and taking of property based
in the drug war.
Not exactly a shining article. The cognitive dissonance,
contradiction, MSM style based hyperbole, poor comparisons,
underlying fear of repercussions of opposing government and
willingness to apparently remain afraid.
The last two paragraphs of advice are, well pathetic. There really
isn't a lot to say about them. The fear or denouncing civil
disobedience is a nice little cherry on this turd of an
article.
This
article is Fractal Wrongness^n
Lord Jubjub|9.4.09 @ 11:21AM|#
In 1295, burgesses were allowed to sit in Parliament. Sometime
during the reign of Edward III, Parliament was split into two
houses.
The deposition of James II in 1688 was the turning point. It's an
interesting speculation what would have happened had parliament
allowed colonial representatives to be seated.
PicassoIII|9.4.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Oh, while were at it.
William ... please, tuck in the shirt, get a shave and dump the
frat boy hat.
Seriously, you're embarassing us.
KTHXBye
After further pondering, yup, dumb.
I even have a Gadsden on order myself, but Kostric totally ends up
checking off all the boxes on someone's (negative) stereotype
list.
There's a difference between asking someone to be PC vs not
unnecessarily provocative.
Oh, and what CluMedSux said.
robc|9.4.09 @ 11:26AM|#
ClubMedSux,
You may disagree with me on this, but in my mind, anyone who freaks
out because a guy has a holstered pistol is an extremist. Moderates
dont think a second think about it.
So, how could this guy drive moderates away?
Tony|9.4.09 @ 11:30AM|#
robc,
Because having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make
it wise. To me the guy comes across as a paranoid coward. Surely we
can have political debate without the implicit threat of
violence.
Hugh Akston|9.4.09 @ 11:31AM|#
That's not very likely ClubMedSux.
The difference between the movement and the mainstream duopoly is
the substance:style ratio. Libertarianism has enough good ideas
presented compellingly by intellectual heavyweights that most
pretentious hacks can be strung up by their own poor
arguments.
The Democrats and Republicans, on the other hand, are
intellectually bankrupt and run by the empty suits most capable of
appealing to the lowest common denominator.
To sum up: The D/R have no substance, but are heavy on style (such
as it is), while the libertarians have plenty of meat, but no
personalities. You can claim to be libertarian by having no
personality, but once people discover you have no substance either,
you lose your power faster than Bob Dole an hour after popping his
pill.
PR|9.4.09 @ 11:31AM|#
PicassoIII | September 4, 2009, 10:53am | #
Dunno,
Gotta agree with Justin on this ... mostly.,/i>
truthers agreeing with each other? no fucking way!
robc|9.4.09 @ 11:36AM|#
Tony,
Surely we can have political debate without the implicit threat
of violence.
As Jefferson made quite clear, the implicit threat of violence is
always a part of political debate. Wearing a gun changes that NONE
AT ALL.
robc|9.4.09 @ 11:38AM|#
the libertarians have plenty of meat, but no
personalities
Penn Gillette?
Drew Carey?
Not that I want them running for Prez, but they are
"personalities".
JB|9.4.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Justin Raimondo, it's a threat against our enemy, The
State.
It's too bad there are so many wimps like you who just love the all
government, all the time, in every hole.
|9.4.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Surely we can have political debate without the implicit
threat of violence.
We're trying, but Team Blue keeps bussing in beefy thugs to
intimidate people.
Oh, and wearing a weapon does not equal an implicit threat of
violence.
|9.4.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Tony: "Surely we can have political debate without the implicit
threat of violence."
Hahahahahahah!
Tony, just how do you think the government derives its power?
Tony|9.4.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Oh, and wearing a weapon does not equal an implicit threat of violence.
You're right, it's more like explicit.
robc|9.4.09 @ 11:45AM|#
anyone who freaks out because a guy has a holstered pistol
is an extremist.
I repeat what I said earlier. It seemed to apply again.
J_B|9.4.09 @ 11:47AM|#
2) The groundswell we are seeing now is the result of a
policy change that will affect the people who are protesting
personally. When the government engages in nefarious foreign
adventurism or denies the rights of an unpopular minority, people
of good conscience denounce it, but Joe Six Pack could care less.
When you come after J6Ps wallet, you'll see the shit hit the fan.
What do you think the last revolution this country had was
about?
I'll post Tony's response to save him the effort. He'll inject race
into this by making a distinction between Joe Six Pack (WASP) and
unpopular minority (everybody else, but occasionally he refers to
them as brown people or those people). Then he will go
further and say we only defend the rights of WASPs here on this
site, and subsequently accuse us of being racist.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 11:49AM|#
I'm not freaking out, I'm saying he comes across as paranoid, cowardly, and ignorant. And when one of his paranoid, cowardly, ignorant friends decides to actually engage in violence, just see how much good it will have done for your movement.
|9.4.09 @ 11:50AM|#
"To carry that sign in one hand, and a gun in the other, is a
declaration of war...."
Except that he had his sign in BOTH hands and his gun strapped to
his leg in a state where open carry doesn't even require a permit.
While I respect Justin Raimondo greatly on his antiwar stance, I
have a sneaking suspicion he doesn't really like open carry without
a permit as a standard of law, at all. I saw the guy in question in
interviews and clips of him almost disinterestedly, but politely
responding to franetic alarm of those who agreed with Raimondo, and
I think he was a very peacable guy who was expressing himself on an
issue he considers important. If an incident with a gun had
occured, I suspect he'd have been the one using his to defend
people, not attack them.
I don't know him, but from all facts I have, I'm on his side. I
think his sign was a figurative, not literal, call to 'taking back
the country', and I think those who have their panties in a twist
about this should remember why the first and second amendments
exist and lighten up.
It isn't as if he bit off someone's finger, or something.
Fluffy|9.4.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Clearly being Ayn Rand novel carrying weenies has gotten
Libertarianism so far. maybe it is time for a different
approach.
Both of Rand's major works endorse acts of property destruction
under certain circumstances.
A character in Atlas commits open acts of violence against
the state, with the obvious full approval of the author and the
narrative mouthpiece of her philosophy.
Is there any violence in Anthem? I can't remember.
There's less distance between Rand and these guys then it might
immediately appear.
Raimondo's only really good point is his observation that a
revolution in America could not possibly succeed. That being the
case, revolutionary rhetoric becomes a sort of pose, and makes the
speaker something of a joke. I talk smack all the time, but mainly
just for a basic verbal catharsis - it never escapes me for even a
moment that the American state could not be defeated unless it was
severely weakened by some random external event, on the scale of a
small asteroid strike. Without some one in a billion event like
that, our state is more eternal than Orwell's ever dreamed of
being. So we may as well not talk about watering the tree of
liberty or any other adolescent fantasies like that.
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 11:57AM|#
He only comes across as paranoid, cowardly and ignorant because
fearful, paranoid, hoplophobes believe that gun=badguy until that
person is wearing a superhero costume police uniform.
And estimated 2.5 million people each year successfully
defend themselves with a firearm, and yet he's paranoid simply
because he has a gun and a quote from a founding father?
Someone needs to learn to not be scared of shit.
T|9.4.09 @ 11:59AM|#
I'm not freaking out, I'm saying he comes across as
paranoid, cowardly, and ignorant.
Man, between Tony and Raimondo we're just full up with the Kettle
v. Pot debate today, aren't we?
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 12:00PM|#
I'm not freaking out, I'm saying he comes across as
paranoid, cowardly, and ignorant.
This says far more about you than it does about him.
Fluffy|9.4.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Actually, Tony's behavior in this thread is the best argument in
favor of Kostric's action that I can think of.
Since his area has open carry, the only reason people would be
afraid or concerned is because Kostric's action is
unusual. If you saw hundreds of people open carrying every
day, eventually from sheer ennui you would stop being so afraid of
it.
Therefore, the best thing people who support open carry can do to
support it is to open carry. If they can make the activity
ubiquitous, maybe people like Tony will stop wetting their pants
about it.
Once upon a time people shat their pants with fear if they saw an
automobile. That doesn't happen so much any more. Hmmmmmm now why
could that be?
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Open carry is legal and shouldn't be an issue.
One of the reasons I prefer it to concealed carry is the fact that
it functions on two levels. It provides you with your weapon, but
also sends a message. That message is always at least "I will use
violence to protect myself." But it can be a more explicit and more
active message when paired with other forms of communication (like
a sign saying it is time to start using violence). Those that are
denying that the gun+sign message would not be reasonably read as a
threat are, well, in denial. If Kostric was all about non-violence,
he should have chosen a different quote, or reworded the quote he
used ("Is it time to start watering the tree of liberty?" - my
suggestion).
RC Dean,
I believe the man who had his finger bitten off the other day was a
"protester" who was punching a "supporter" in the face. His finger
got bitten off on his second punch. Not all of the protesters are
peaceful victims. Thugs are showing up on both sides.
PicassoIII|9.4.09 @ 12:04PM|#
PR wrote:
truthers agreeing with each other? no fucking way!
Straw man much?
As much as i would love to pin 9/11 on W and Dick ...
puhleaze.
No false flag either, while i allow some possibility that an ally
(supposed) of ours MAY have had a hint that something was up and
didn't tell us, that's as cranky as i get.
I find Raimondo a curiousity more than anything else; a gadfly on
the gadflies.
Like others there is respect for his primary 'work'; Antiwar. Non
aggression being a CORE libertarian value.
|9.4.09 @ 12:05PM|#
To suggest that Parliament before the Great Reform Bill of 1832
was in any meaningful way democratic is extremely dishonest. Just
ask the members from Old Sarum.
To argue that a House elected on an extremely limited franchise and
interested mainly in simultaneously defending elite interests
against the pretensions of the monarch and the demands of the mob
is equivalent to the current Congress in the United States is also
dishonest
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 12:10PM|#
That message is always at least "I will use violence to
protect myself."
Don't tread on me.
T|9.4.09 @ 12:11PM|#
To argue that a House elected on an extremely limited
franchise and interested mainly in simultaneously defending elite
interests against the pretensions of the monarch and the demands of
the mob is equivalent to the current Congress in the United States
is also dishonest
True. The current Congress is mainly concerned with defending elite
interests and enabling the pretensions of the President.
Or was that not your point?
Tony|9.4.09 @ 12:12PM|#
I go in public all the time without the faintest thought that I need a firearm with me just in case. Why is this guy anything but a coward for feeling that he does? It's certainly not bravery.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Non aggression being a CORE libertarian value.
No it is not. How many times must it be said that libertarianism is political? I would not say it has no values, because some measure of values must be inscribed into law (I guess...), but libertarianism is not a philosophy.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Apparently good tags are not a libertarian value, either.
Non aggression being a CORE libertarian value.
No it is not. How many times must it be said that libertarianism is
political? I would not say it has no values, because some measure
of values must be inscribed into law (I guess...), but
libertarianism is not a philosophy.
I go in public all the time without the faintest thought that I need a firearm with me just in case.
That's because you are a spoiled little child. Guys and gals like
you who are just about 10 years older than you can tell you that
that fear was there and palpable.
Frankly, you're being disgusting.
|9.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
This was widely interpreted as a not-so-subtle threat to the
President, personally.
Personally politically whatever...i am sure it all has the same
meaning to the hack who wrote this.
|9.4.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Impotent Rage + Homosexual Panic = JB Post.
Would you guys stop talking about it and actually do something? I'm
sure sternly worded t-shirts impress everyone when you come down
from the help desk but at some point you'll have to "start slitting
throats". Please start your revolution, you badasses.
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 12:19PM|#
kinnath,
I believe that would have been a much better sign to carry. It
aligns better with the message Kostric claims was intended (not
sure I buy his claims, he picked his words too carefully, and
changed the Jefferson quote in a way that made it more aggressive.
I think he has been back-peddling to make the quote seem less
aggressive than it was originally intended. Maybe because he
realized he was being too aggressive and wanted to clarify, maybe
to be sure he had "plausible denial" if anyone took his suggestion
seriously and acted. Who knows.)
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 12:19PM|#
mantooth - just out of curiosity, do you have a limit?
Mine is if there is ever reinstitution of the draft. That
would be the throat-slitting moment.
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 12:23PM|#
TAO,
Please engage Sean W. Malone on the "non-aggression" principle as a
core of libertarianism. The last time Kostric was discussed, he was
pretty adamant about it being the foundation upon which all of
libertarianism was built.
|9.4.09 @ 12:24PM|#
TAO,
Yes, but probably different than yours. My hackles are raised more
by church/state interactions. Not so much by universal
health-care.
PR|9.4.09 @ 12:25PM|#
PicassoIII | September 4, 2009, 9:23am | #
Know who else is on that 'truther' list?
Ralph Nader.
Yes, he's a dyed in the wool progressive, but hardly a lunatic.
Some even find him occasionally, uh, right.
PicassoIII I saw this on another thread and misunderstood your
position. My apologies.
|9.4.09 @ 12:25PM|#
I hate to say it, but I've got to agree with Raimondo on this
one. While Kostric certainly has the legal right to display his
sign while openly carrying, that does not negate the damage that he
and his fellow troofers are doing to the movement.
It's time the movement cleaned house. These guys are not
libertarians. They want to stop immigration and post troops on the
border. Most want protectionist policies. They are socially
intolerant and call traditional libertarians "libertines". Most are
for marijuana legalization, but you mention decriminalizing cocaine
or meth and they freak out. Racists and anti-semites infect their
ranks. And they openly talk about violent armed resistance.
If we don't have enough people to vote the bums out of office, what
the hell makes you think we have enough people to win an armed
revolution against the largest and best equipped army in the
world?
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Neu - when Sean says that, he means as a principle of
governance. I highly doubt that Sean ever means to ascribe as a
personal value, which is how I interpreted what Piccassoll
wrote. I don't think it's a pedantic point (but then again, I never
do).
Yes, but probably different than yours.
Then knock it off with the bullshit. If you something to say about
why this limit and that limit aren't valid, then say it.
|9.4.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Libertarism is both a philiosophical stance and a political
movement. The basis of the philiosophy is the absolute right of
self-ownership. The political side assumes that by basing itself on
the non-initiation of force. A belief in self-ownership implies a
belief in the non-initiation of force.
I think we would better off empahaisizng the philiosophy rather
than the mechanisms of that philosophy.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 12:34PM|#
It doesn't occur to you guys that a guy with a big fucking gun might seem more threatening to average people than the looming specter of socialism does?
|9.4.09 @ 12:35PM|#
TAO,
I'm not questioning any one's limit. We have commenters here saying
that they have passed their limit. I'm asking them to act on
it.
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 12:38PM|#
"I go in public all the time without the faintest thought that I
need a firearm with me just in case. Why is this guy anything but a
coward for feeling that he does? It's certainly not bravery."
Because you feel safe in a world that's most definitely
not safe, you believe that anyone who doesn't feel that
way is a coward?
Fuck you, you pathetic limp dicked piece of shit. I'm one of those
2.5 million a year who've had to draw down on a human being because
of an imminent threat to me and my family. Oh yeah, I guess I'm a
coward because I was able to keep harm from befalling my family?
Fuck you.
You don't want to carry? That's your right, and I'll defend your
right to not carry a firearm. But don't you fucking dare accuse
those who do of being cowards. No, it's not bravery that makes us
carry, it's reality. Bad shit happens every day, and sometime it
might happen to you. I don't have fire extinguishers in my house
because I expect a fire, or anything else, it's because shit
happens and houses catch on fire.
You have lead a sheltered life you pathetic sub-human. Consider
yourself lucky. I hope you choke on your boyfriend's load.
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 12:39PM|#
TAO,
Well, Sean will have to speak for himself of course, but I do think
he would be closer to Sugarfree on this than you...unless I am
misunderstanding your point.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Tomcat1066,
Carry all you want. Don't expect me to consider you brave for
feeling the need to carry a big fucking gun to a peaceful public
event--and don't be surprised if someone finds that it's you who is
the one generating the threatening atmosphere with your big fucking
gun.
|9.4.09 @ 12:41PM|#
To expand on my last sentence, you need popular support for an
armed resistance to succeed. Less than 2% (and that's being
generous) of the populace does not a popular movement make.
The comparisons of our situation to Colonial America are erroneous.
They had local democracies, but had no say whatsoever in the
governing of England itself. The colonies didn't engage in armed
resistance against Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, they
engaged in armed resistance against Great Britain.
A revolution in a democracy consists of voting one group out and
voting your own group in. Yet we have managed to elect one, only
one, bona fide libertarian to state or national office in over
twenty years. And only a handful of quasi-libertarians. Face it, we
don't have popular support.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Libertarianism is both a philosophical stance and a political movement.
It is not a philosophical stance. It doesn't tell me how to think
or what to think. I don't reference libertarianism when I think
"Should I lie or tell the truth?" "Should I steal or should I pay
for it?" "Should I hit this guy or should I not hit this guy?"
Van Jones|9.4.09 @ 12:45PM|#
truthers agreeing with each other
Wassssssssssssssssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup!!
Where's the lime jello? Your czar has a green job for you,
bitch.
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Tony,
You're the asshole calling people cowards because they're facing
the reality that bad shit happens. I never called myself brave, and
I don't know anyone who carries that thinks it makes them brave
either. Of course, your reading comprehension has always been
suspect, because no one has said carrying a firearm makes one
brave.
Of course, you don't seem to realize that NO object makes someone
brave. Bravery is within the person themselves, and a gun is just a
fucking tool, kind of like you expect that the gun can be a useful
tool.
And as for this part: "and don't be surprised if someone finds that
it's you who is the one generating the threatening atmosphere with
your big fucking gun."
Then they need to get over their own fucking hoplophobia and get a
fucking grip. My gun isn't a threat. If *I* am a threat, it doesn't
matter what the fuck I have, I can cause you harm. If I'm not a
threat, then the presence of a gun doesn't change that.
But I guess you and your ilk don't believe that humans can actually
be decent people without government intervention in every
activity.
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 12:49PM|#
While violent crime in the US is way more common than it should
be, the chances that you will be the victim of a violent crime
perpetrated by someone carrying a gun is smaller than the danger
you will be seriously injured by a lightning strike.
That said, guns are the weapon of choice among murderers in the
US.
|9.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Carrying guns is the flag burning of the right wing.
I support the right of all persons to exercise either, but...
tactically really really stupid.
This is a political meeting, act politically. In the event that
insurrection is required, you will be informed where your armed
resistance is required.
And I say this from the point of view from someone who has tried to
carry the Libertarian banner at anti-war rallies. The Lesbian
Organic Loggers for a Livable Wage just would not. Shut. Up.
Oh, and Tony, sweetie, libertarians are not Republicans. I just
bring that up again because if you keep managing to ignore that,
you might be of sufficient density to replace gold for backing the
currency -- and we really need that now.
PicassoIII|9.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#
TAO,
Fair enough.
Libertarian politics (to my mind) insist that war be a last resort
and justified by an attack of another nation on our
territory.
Oh and of course "Declared by an Act of Congress"
Better?
And yes, you are being a bit pedantic. It's ok, it's technically
correct. But without a 'philosophical' base a political platform
becomes nothing but empty reactive posturing, sort of like most Ds
and Rs these days.
Seriously, it's really hard to separate. George Will made the same
'mistake' on Colbert once. Defining the core 'values' of liberalism
vs conservatism; Equality vs Freedom.
Jordan|9.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#
It doesn't occur to you guys that a guy with a big fucking gun might seem more threatening to average people than the looming specter of socialism does?
No, because criminals don't openly carry their weapons
dipshit.
I go in public all the time without the faintest thought that I need a firearm with me just in case. Why is this guy anything but a coward for feeling that he does? It's certainly not bravery.
You're a mind reader now, huh? Maybe he just likes to? Maybe he
wants to be prepared just in case? Do you have a fire extinguisher
in your house? If you do, then you better throw that shit out you
goddamn coward.
|9.4.09 @ 12:50PM|#
I don't reference libertarianism when I think "Should I lie
or tell the truth?" "Should I steal or should I pay for it?"
"Should I hit this guy or should I not hit this guy?"
There's a difference between a stance and an ideology. You either
believe in self-ownership or you don't. It is self-ownership that
answers those very questions you posed. Just because you (and I,
for that matter) have internalized it into instinct, doesn't mean
it isn't a belief system.
Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it
obvious. There are bilions of peole who can't understand the
principles and effects of self-ownership. They don't share our
philosophy. We should persuade them.
Neu Mejican|9.4.09 @ 1:00PM|#
No, because criminals don't openly carry their weapons
dipshit.
Some do...just saying.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 1:01PM|#
It is self-ownership that answers those very questions you posed.
Not...really. How would "self-ownership" answer whether I should
cheat on a test? Cheat on my (as of yet hypothetical) wife? Whether
I should get some work done or continue fucking off on here, for
example?
kilroy|9.4.09 @ 1:04PM|#
No, because criminals don't openly carry their weapons dipshit.
Some do...just saying.
Yeah, but they can be easily identified by their badge and
uniform.
Slap the Enlightened!|9.4.09 @ 1:05PM|#
So Justin Raimondo has upstaged even Reason in the Sensitivity
Sweepstakes?
This is gonna be one of those days. I think I'll just go back to
bed and try to start the whole day over again.
|9.4.09 @ 1:05PM|#
I remember a time not that long ago when some libertarians were
trying to distance themselves from some other "crackpots"
And who was the loudest bitch attacking all libertarians who had a
problem associating with bigots and lunatics? Justin
Raimondo.
Raimondo is fine with associating with and worshiping a lot of
serious nutjobs and bigots, but some guy carries a gun and wears a
mild t-shirt, and now we have a fucking problem?
FWIW, the "non-violent" Lew Rockwell and some of his buddies have
certainly endorsed state violence in the past and some continue to
do so. This is all a bunch of bullshit.
I agree though, this armed guy and his revolutionaries will never
win. So it is much better for libertarians to spend all their time
at neo-Confederate events, writing op-eds supporting police
brutality, and attending Self-Hating Homosexual and Jewish
Anti-Semite conferences,etc.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Raimondo is a total enigma. One of those "contains multitudes" types that Whitman was singing about.
|9.4.09 @ 1:18PM|#
One of those "contains multitudes" types that Whitman was
singing about.
So Justin is "hankering, gross, mystical, nude?" Ew.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 1:21PM|#
I'm guessing if the guy were a black panther carrying a gun you'd all be falling over yourselves to an equal extent defending his patriotism and bravery.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 1:25PM|#
It makes me really said that, every time I go to Tony-troll's
livejournal,
I am faced with him reminiscing about his birthday from two years
ago.
Sadness.
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 1:28PM|#
I'm guessing if the guy were a black panther carrying a gun
you'd all be falling over yourselves to an equal extent defending
his patriotism and bravery.
Well, since I haven't defended anyone's "patriotism and bravery",
probably not. But I would defend his right to carry a weapon in
public.
As you've been told before, this isn't a Republican site, so I
don't have a problem with any group of people carrying
guns. Unlike some folks, I don't equate them to things like bravery
or cowardice (though you have somehow missed that repeatedly).
They're just tools that can be used for good or ill, depending on
their wielder's intentions. The same can be said for hammers,
wrenches, axes, knives, and cars.
Joe M|9.4.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Not...really. How would "self-ownership" answer whether I
should cheat on a test? Cheat on my (as of yet hypothetical)
wife?
Self-ownership for you, self-ownership for others. Those two acts
involve committing fraud, which violates another's rights. If you
believe in self-ownership, you would abstain from such actions.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#
It doesn't occur to you guys that a guy with a big fucking
gun might seem more threatening to average people than the looming
specter of socialism does?
I remember moving from what I considered a moderately conservative
culture in Iowa to Arizona in the mid-80s.
I also remember being stunned the first time I saw a guy with a
holstered pistol pushing a cart through the grocery store.
The locals actively encouraged me to get over my liberal ways and
stopping making a big deal of seeing guns in public.
It really didn't take that long. So there's hope for everyone,
including Tony, eventually.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#
I'm guessing if the guy were a black panther carrying a gun
you'd all be falling over yourselves to an equal extent defending
his patriotism and bravery.
Yes, actually.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Those two acts involve committing fraud, which violates another's rights. If you believe in self-ownership, you would abstain from such actions.
I don't think anyone's "rights" are infringed in the case of
adultery.
But what of actions that are not out-and-out fraudulent, just
dickish? Not tipping at the restaurant? Cutting someone off in
traffic? Calling your mom on mother's day?
Face it, guys, self-ownership as a guiding philosophy is pretty
terrible.
Anthony Gregory|9.4.09 @ 1:38PM|#
The Angry Optimist: Libertarianism 'doesn't tell me how to think
or what to think. I don't reference libertarianism when I think
"Should I lie or tell the truth?" "Should I steal or should I pay
for it?" "Should I hit this guy or should I not hit this
guy?"'
Stealing is unlibertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy
-- an ism -- on the proper role of force and which behavior
(peaceful) should be tolerated.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Libertarianism is a political philosophy -- an ism -- on the proper role of force and which behavior (peaceful) should be tolerated.
Yes to the former, no to the latter. How does libertarianism
determine what peaceful behavior will be tolerated?
Tony|9.4.09 @ 1:52PM|#
See TAO thinks it's perfectly appropriate to badger and bully and interfere with the privacy of people he disagrees with. Of course libertarianism may pretend to be an all-encompassing worldview but I don't think it has much of a built-in role for manners.
Hugh Akston|9.4.09 @ 1:53PM|#
TAO, I think he meant tolerated by the government. All political philosophies have to answer the question of what peaceable behaviors will be tolerated (by the state). The answer for libertarianism is "most if not all."
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Tony, what the fuck are you talking about?
It's Tony. Do you really give a shit?
|9.4.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Any behavior that does not violate anyone's right of
self-ownership is to be tolerated.
TAO, you seem to be conflating a philosophy stance with an ethical
stance. One may inform the other, but they are not necessarily the
same thing. Much like carrot, onion, and celery, self-ownership is
the basis of my beliefs not the entire soup.
|9.4.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Libertarian What? no one in this country knows what the libertarian party is. At least they know who Ron Paul is. May the party needs MORE kooks and not less. Then maybe we could elect a few Libertarians.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 2:03PM|#
Tony's talking about how I flame him out of existence by posting
the link to his livejournal. Apparently linking to his public
website is somehow a violation of his privacy. Who knew?
SugarFree and others - a philosophy is a comprehensive worldview. A
philosophy should contain both ethics and politics.
"Self-ownership" as the one-line solution to routine and
not-so-routine ethical quandries sucks.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Since I've squandered another perfectly good year drawing
breath and generally contributing to overpopulation and various
carbon footprints, I suppose it's time to do something in
celebration of my having survived a quarter century.
My children are older than Tony. This explains so much.
robc|9.4.09 @ 2:07PM|#
guns are the weapon of choice among murderers in the
US.
Guns are the weapon of choice among murderers everywhere. They just
cant always act on their choice.
|9.4.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Justin Raimondo does not understand that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not taken seriously by free men.
Tony|9.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#
My children are older than Tony. This explains so much.
Well I'm quick for my age. I was done being a libertarian by 9th
grade.
Dexter|9.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#
Guns are the weapon of choice among murderers
everywhere.
You really can't enjoy it unless you can look directly into their
eyes as the blade penetrates.
|9.4.09 @ 2:10PM|#
That's your right, and I'll defend your right to not carry a
firearm. But don't you fucking dare accuse those who do of being
cowards.
Interesting that someone who takes no responsibility at all for
defending himself or others is calling those who are willing to
shoulder the responsibility of doing so, and the risk that comes
with it, "cowards."
That said, guns are the weapon of choice among murderers in the
US.
They also seem to be the weapon of choice for people defending
themselves in the US.
No, because criminals don't openly carry their weapons
dipshit.
Some do...just saying.
As anyone who reads Radley Balko knows.
robc|9.4.09 @ 2:10PM|#
I'm guessing if the guy were a black panther carrying a gun
you'd all be falling over yourselves to an equal extent defending
his patriotism and bravery.
Listen dumbass. NO ONE has called Kostric "patriotic" or "brave".
NO ONE.
I support the rights of black panthers to open carry.
Fuck off if you arent going to learn to read.
|9.4.09 @ 2:11PM|#
I go in public all the time without the faintest thought
that I need a firearm with me just in case.
Bullshit. If you were to be attacked, you would--what? Call a cop,
right? A cop is just someone that you've hired to carry a gun for
you. You flatter yourself that you're on some higher moral plane
just because you don't touch the gun yourself?
Yeah, it's your gun. You bought it, and you're
paying the guy carrying it.
kinnath|9.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Well I'm quick for my age.
Not really. I would say you're still living the high-school,
rah-rah, progressive fantasy.
Invisible Finger|9.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#
but certainly it has at the very least the potential to
drive away more moderate supporters of liberty, disaffected by the
two major parties, who may otherwise be interested in supporting
libertarian causes.
The bill of rights aren't open for debate. Sorry.
Joe M|9.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#
I don't think anyone's "rights" are infringed in the case of
adultery.
Doesn't it basically violate the contract of marriage,
though?
But what of actions that are not out-and-out fraudulent, just
dickish? Not tipping at the restaurant? Cutting someone off in
traffic? Calling your mom on mother's day?
Face it, guys, self-ownership as a guiding philosophy is pretty
terrible.
Eh, point taken. Still, it's valid component to a good
philosophy.
The Supreme Court|9.4.09 @ 2:13PM|#
The bill of rights aren't open for debate. Sorry.
We beg to differ.
robc|9.4.09 @ 2:13PM|#
I dont know why it has taken me this long, maybe I thought he
would turn into joe or something, but Tony is finally going into
incif.
Buh bye.
hmm|9.4.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Tony | September 4, 2009, 12:34pm | #
It doesn't occur to you guys that a guy with a big fucking gun might seem more threatening to average people than the looming specter of socialism does?
1) nope. I'm not scared of guns. Regardless of size, color, bayonet
lug, barrel length, magazine capacity or for any other reason. They
are about as scary to me as a hammer.
2) The nut with the gun strapped to his leg is probably not going
to shoot me because he doesn't want to go to jail. The one with the
gun and a badge is much more likely to shoot me since he knows the
worst he will most likely see is a career change.
3) you can spend your time fearing the lone man, or even the small
groups, that wear guns. I'll spend my time worrying about the ones
that shoot fire chiefs in court rooms, pastors, dogs, mothers,
religious nuts, and a litany of other citizens that had their lives
taken without recourse by our government.
I fear government far more than the local gun nut.
The Angry Optimist|9.4.09 @ 2:16PM|#
I would say since we have an amendment process, everything in
the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is open to
debate.
Rights themselves, on the other hand, are not.
Invisible Finger|9.4.09 @ 2:16PM|#
But it can be a more explicit and more active message when
paired with other forms of communication (like a sign saying it is
time to start using violence).
Only to an idiot.
Jordan|9.4.09 @ 2:20PM|#
But I would defend his right to carry a weapon in public.
No, dumbass. But I would absolutely defend his right to openly
carry a gun. The Black Panthers have historically been very good
allies on the 2nd Amendment.
Fluffy|9.4.09 @ 2:25PM|#
I'm guessing if the guy were a black panther carrying a gun
you'd all be falling over yourselves to an equal extent defending
his patriotism and bravery.
Actually, yes.
I have expended quite a few pixels defending the Black Panthers
were were falsely accused of voter intimidation by bedwetting white
boys. And I voiced my support for Eric Holder when he declined to
pursue the matter.
Jordan|9.4.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Uh...that's what pretty much what I said in that part you quoted.
Whoops, blockquote malfunction. Tony's quote should have been in
there. Sorry about that.
Tomcat1066|9.4.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Ah, Ok. I was trying to figure out why you were calling me a dumbass when we agreed. Figured it was a misquote, but sometimes you can't be to sure.
Jordan|9.4.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Unless of course my tax dollars are paying for their education. Which is why my tax dollars shouldn't be paying for their education.
|9.4.09 @ 2:57PM|#
I go in public all the time without the faintest thought
that I need a firearm with me just in case. Why is this guy
anything but a coward for feeling that he does? It's certainly not
bravery.
What is cowardice? But the body's wisdom of its weakness. What is
bravery? But the body's wisdom of its strength. The coward and the
hero march together within every man. So to call one man coward, or
another brave, merely serves to indicate the possibilities of their
achieving the opposite.
|9.4.09 @ 2:58PM|#
The complete letter by Thomas Jefferson where the quote in
question was obtained
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm
Truth is, Our forefather's would have all been proclaimed
terrorists today. Take Kostric and plunge him back to the end of
the colonial period in America, and your child might be studying
him as a hero in history, like Paul Revere, or the "Shot heard
round the world". By this, I don't mean that I agree with him
necessarily. What I am saying is that it took a lot of violence
oriented free speech to bring this country into existence.
"Free speech" - I don't think Americans today even understand the
word. Free thought, and free association are following the death of
free speech close behind. Today we have laws that have ripped away
the very things that Thomas Jefferson spoke to preserve, and that
countless men spilled their blood for. I am so thankful for the
lack of time travel technology, as if it existed someone from today
might try to deny all generations their liberty instead of only
mine, and my posterity. Like it or not, while you all sit around
debating whether one man has a right to call for revolution and
carry a gun, tyranny is coming to a neighborhood near you. Oh, it
may not be next week, but when it is you standing, starving in line
for the gas chamber, or your family dead and naked in a mass grave,
we shall see how you view the man calling for liberty, and how you
will feel about his right to carry a gun in public then. For
history, is on the side that tyranny will come again, and when it
inevitably comes it will be not because there were too many
Kostrics in the world, but because there were not enough. Currently
in America, there are far too few people who would slow our
progression from liberty to tyranny, so our track seems to be on a
faster course than is necessary to our own destruction. Do I think
we should all gather in the street and pick up arms? NO! I think we
should throw the garbage we have for politicians out, and find some
real men who give a crap about our nation, and the generations who
will follow after, and replace this government non-violently. We
need people who believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
not the corporate raiders who are lining the pockets of the present
political bloodsuckers. What we need is to bounce every single one
of them(except Ron Paul)out of office in 2010 and 2012, and replace
them with average Americans who love their country more than they
love themselves. Do I think this will happen? NO! I'm not sure
there are enough of those people left in this nation to fill both
houses of Congress and the Presidency. Instead we put people like
Ted Kennedy in office for 42 years, and Bushes in for 16+. Man, are
we stupid! We are also cruisin for a bruisin. Honestly, I don't
think anyone has to worry here about Kostric starting a revolution.
There aren't enough people in this country with the stomach to
handle one, nor the guts to save themselves without one.
Little Bit Farm
|9.4.09 @ 3:16PM|#
A gun in one hand and a sign in the other? A declaration of
war?
Looks to me as though the firearm is holstered in a non-threatening
and entirely legal manner. For all we know, he could have been
carrying the firearm because he felt that there was a possibility
some nut would attempt a mass-shooting and that was his way of
possibly stopping it.
Why do some people automatically assume any presence of a firearm
is a threat? I guess that means all the secret service agents who
carry (but don't necessarily agree with the Beloved Leader) are a
threat to the president.
Anthony Gregory|9.4.09 @ 3:29PM|#
The Angry Optimist, by "tolerated," I mean, "not dealt with through force." Even if you don't accept people eating meat or smoking crack, you tolerate them by not throwing them in a cage.
|9.4.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Watching Kung-Fu has given me the wisdom of the East, while enjoying the comfort of the West.
|9.4.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Master Po is my favorite blind Chinese monk
Mine too. Plus, I'm always hoping for the chance to ask Jennifer
Aniston to come over to my place to watch Kung Fu.
alan|9.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#
To carry that sign in one hand, and a gun in the other, is a
declaration of war. A war, I hasten to add, that Kostric and his
fellow revolutionaries cannot possibly hope to win.
[...]
This goes counter to the prevailing argument commonly expressed on
Antiwar.com that First World, highly bureaucratic armies are no
match for decentralized insurgencies that are embedded in the
people.
LeeJoe Cruz|9.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Yes because somehow the Libertarian Movement isn't already marginalized by the illiterate majority. You have no rights, the patriot act lets the Feds write their own warrants. If they had any just cause, they'd go get a warrant. As for a gun going off, obviously this author has never shot a gun.
highnumber|9.4.09 @ 6:01PM|#
You have lead a sheltered life you pathetic sub-human. Consider yourself lucky. I hope you choke on your boyfriend's load.
What's with the homophobia?
Craig|9.4.09 @ 6:01PM|#
I have no problem with people carrying guns, or signs quoting
Jefferson's more radical ideas, but Raimondo is right in this
instance. The sign wasn't a direct quote from Jefferson, it was a
call to action, by an armed protester, to start the
bloodletting.
I'm really surprised the Secret Service let it go, but that was
probably a smart decision on their part, to avoid escalating the
situation and inviting more serious activities at later
events.
All that being said, the actions of one person don't marginalize a
movement, or reflect badly on others in that movement, since
libertarians don't believe in guilt by association.
hmm|9.4.09 @ 6:13PM|#
The secret service didn't let anything go. There was nothing to let go. Just like the SS said he was not inside, and posed no threat. They gave no more thought to the situation once they asked him to move from LoS on the motorcade and he did. Willingly and without complaint.
JB|9.4.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Impotent Rage + Homosexual Panic = JB Post.
Would you guys stop talking about it and actually do something? I'm
sure sternly worded t-shirts impress everyone when you come down
from the help desk but at some point you'll have to "start slitting
throats". Please start your revolution, you badasses.
'mantooth', you sure claim to know a lot about homosexuality.
Please project more, moron.
SIV|9.4.09 @ 7:06PM|#
It is bound to end in a violent incident: Indeed, there have
already been confrontations between the "tea-baggers" and union
thugs at those town-hall meetings.
Justin Raimondo is a Rachel Maddow libertarian?
Damn, I have trouble keeping up with the diversity of the "left
wing" of libertarianism
|9.4.09 @ 9:15PM|#
JB,
Not sure I was claiming anything. Just have noticed a pattern with
your comments. But hey, at least this time you ended with an insult
instead of your usual threats of sexual violence. I'm proud of
you.
|9.4.09 @ 9:24PM|#
If he didn't break the law or infringe on the rights of others, I have no problem with his actions.
|9.5.09 @ 6:34AM|#
"This was widely interpreted as a not-so-subtle threat to the
President, personally. And I fail to see how it could be understood
in any other way"
No it was not a personal threat to the President. It was a threat
to an out of control Government and a reminder to the politicians
of what will happen if they overstep their roles from servants to
despots.
The problem with the current crop is they think we are a democracy
--- they won so anything they want they can do. We need to remind
them that this is a constitutional Republic.
We will not go quietly into the shackles of servitude.
GILMORE|9.5.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I still think thigh holsters are the gai unless you're usually wearing 8+ AR15 mags and other gear around your waist. Its all for show.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245