Shopping for guns and votes in Tallahassee

Tallahassee, Fla - Gun issues have not played a major role in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. They are barely on the radar this go around. At the Tallahassee Gun Show, attendees ranked Second Amendment cbelow issues like the economy and "the Constitution." Only two of the four remaining candidates mention the Second Amendment prominently on their sites: Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. 

From Gingrich's site:

The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights which God has given you.

From Santorum's site:

Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.

Most of the voters I talked to at this show were supporting Santorum or Ron Paul. Nobody liked Romney but all said they would probably end up voting "against" President Obama. The organizers of the event barred me from talking to people or taking pictures inside the actual show so we talked in the parking lot. 

Dave Young, 52, of Tallahassee said he struggled between Paul and Santorum before eventually going with the latter. "Definitely not big government Romney or Newt. Both of them are self confessed progressives and progressives are just slow-motion socialists. I agree with what Dr. Paul says but I liked what Santorum said about the Constituion," he said. 

"It's nice to see that gun sales across the country are way, way up," said Young, adding that gun issues comprise about 80 percent of his political decision-making. 

One gentlemn, who professed his love for Reason but declined give his name because he is a lobbyist, said he was pretty sure he would vote for Paul.  "I can't freaking stand Gingrich. I would fucking voting for Obama before I'd vote for Gingrich. He's a disgraced, failed politican," he said.  

The lobbyist said the Second Amendment was not a factor in the primary because so many states have liberalized gun laws. All the talk about Obama coming to take everyone's guns away was a non-issue. "I've seen no indication of anything in that direction," he said. 

Not everyone voting for Paul said they were voting because of his economic policy. 

"I don't think we need to be involved in everyone's business," said Charles Fogg, a Vietnam Vet and gun collector.

"We got people here we could be spending money on. Like health insurance. I believe that universal health care should be done in the United States," he said. 

Not exactly something you hear from your typical Paul voter. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights which God has given you.

    Ugh. RKBA is for a lot of reasons and this is the most brain-shutting-off one.

    Appealing to the need for self-defense is plenty to safeguard RKBA. No need to invoke armed revolt.

  • ryan||

    "No need to invoke armed revolt."

    not 'til 2014 anyway

  • The Main Reason||

    "the security of a free state"

  • ||

    That means the state vs. a hypothetical tyrannical fed govt. qv the PA declaration of rights:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    That doesn't cover armed revolt against the state.

    Not that it's not important to have revolt lurking in the background, but writing it into law that way would be pretty stupid; if you legalize revolt, it's not a revolt, is it? (I know NH has a provision in their constitution about the right to revolt, but I still think it's stupid.)

  • Xenocles||

    You're saying the 2A doesn't enshrine the right to revolt because the PA version doesn't? Your cavalier dismissal of the NH version even demonstrates that there's at least a good chance that's what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the 2A in the first place.

  • ||

    The NH version is the only version that does deal with revolt (and it's not in the gun ownership right text, either, it's elsewhere in the doc). The PA version is typical of the formulation of declarations of rights of the time.

    Armed revolts against state governments are certainly not conducive to the "security of a free state", are they?

  • Xenocles||

    They are if the state is no longer free - "free" is a key adjective there, though I'll grant that its finer meaning is open to interpretation.

  • ||

    By the way, I hate being proven wrong like I was, which is why I constantly splatter my stupid fucking opinion all over the place and keep screeching until everyone decides to ignore me, then I claim I was right.

    I'm not, I know it, and I'm too fucking pathetic to admit it.

  • wareagle||

    so we missed the announcement of your candidacy? Being wrong never stops the truly committed candidate from soldiering on. :)

  • ||

    spoof, obviously

  • ||

    spoof true, obviously

  • Chatroom Crank||

    The Kentucky Constitution Section 4:
    "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper"

    Sounds like that protects revolt.

  • wareagle||

    revolt is easier to protect when standing behind the business end of a weapon. This administration, and the one before it to be fair, have shown a casual disregard for words on paper.

  • ||

    Yes, it does. However KY wasn't around at the time of ratification.

  • ||

    Which of course, means absolutely nothing in regards to my point, except that I'm obviously wrong and need a stupid fucking excuse.

  • FREE STATISM! no contradiction||

    LOLOLOLOL

  • Ghost ||

    The claim that "god" has somehow granted you this right (but not some of his other creations in the world) doesn't make your brain shut off too? Seriously America is fucked.

  • cathrine||

    Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you've come to the right place---datebi*cO'm---. Just join in for free!

  • cathrine||

    Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you've come to the right place---datebi*cO'm---. Just join in for free!

  • Brad||

    Why is Santorum emphasizing hunting and "fishing"(?) in order to defend the right to bear arms? How about invoking the fundamental right to self defense? Even liberals often emphasize hunting in order to convince audiences that they support the RTBA, while not even mentioning self defense, as if the concept doesn't register on their radar screens.

    BTW, I thought Santorum had a lot of fucking nerve attacking Paul on his second amendment record in one of the recent debates. What libertarian doesn't support the second amendment?

  • Uncle Pfizer||

    it's huntin' and fishin' and that.

  • ||

    There was a robocall in Iowa claiming Santorum was bad on second amendment issues...which everyone thought was the Paul campaign's doing. That's the reason for the attack against Paul, I think.

  • db||

    Santorum doesn't really give a fuck about guns. What he doesn't realize is that 2nd Amendment voters have come a long way (especially in PA) from the Fudds that voted him into office way back when.

    RKBA enthusiasts are so much more than hunters anymore. Hunters and "traditional sportsmen" are notorious for supporting a little bit of gun control for "scary" guns if they can sacrifice them to keep their precious rifles and shotguns.

  • ws||

    I think that trend is changing, I think more hunters are starting to realize gun control activists don't give a shit about hunting and that they are just a little further down the list from the evil black rifles.

    Santorum hasn't woken up to this yet, and is still pandering on this issue like he did in PA in the '90's. He doesn't give a shit about gun rights.

  • db||

    The fact is, most firearms sold now are handguns or "black guns." The advent of the internet ushered in new markets and sources of information regarding NFA weapons too so sales, especially of suppressors, have skyrocketed in that realm as well.

    The largest increase in sales has been in the kind of scary guns that gun control

  • db||

    ...efforts of the '90s were aimed at.

    Most new shooters I talk to are not hunters, have never hunted, and come from backgrounds that have dis ouraged shooting sports. Many are recent college graduates and women who have more interest in self defense or plinking than hunting and outdoorsmanship, and that's fine! Politicians like Santorum who don't recognize this and won't embrace it end up looking like the transparent panderers they are when they speak to the new shooting community about the importance of "huntjng and fishing traditions." Many new shooters are getting into the sport as an alternative to the traditions of their family backgrounds.

  • Maxxx||

    My daughter is a twentysomething liberal vegan living in San Francisco and she owns a gun for self defense.

    Based on that I'd say that we've won the RBA argument with the public. It'll probably take a few decades for politics and government to catch up with the public.

  • wareagle||

    now there's who the NRA needs to get for a testimonial ad. How in the world does she square away her gun with all the other liberal claptrap that she is living?

  • Maxxx||

    She's big on civil liberties and personal freedom and hasn't figured out yet that the left is full of shit on those issues or that government fucks up everything it touches.

  • wareagle||

    well, she's twentysomething, which explain a lot. You will become increasingly smarter in her eyes as the years pass.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    The NRA came out against Paul a few years ago because he didn't support the Federal prohibition of lawsuits against gun makers. Paul said it was a state issue.

  • ||

    Yes. It was one of those cases (like the Civil Rights Act imho) where rigid adherence to federalist principles would allow a truly horrid abuse of power by state and local govts. So an exception was warranted.

    I don't really fault RP for standing on principle, but if it had been me I would have made an exception.

  • ||

    Why is Santorum emphasizing hunting and "fishing"(?) in order to defend the right to bear arms?

    Because he's just spewing soundbites hoping something will stick.

  • rather||

    Which one will make sure to bee seen in a Starbucks Feb 14th?

  • rather||

    And also, which one will make sure to be seen farting in a jar?

  • Funny!||

    Every time!

  • rather||

    Why are spoofers funny every time?

  • Funny!||

    Not the spoofers, silly. The distinctive, glittering brilliancy of the joke! So awesome in its mental keenness that it must be repeated over and over and over...and yet, with repeated airings, it never loses its luster! It's a classic, the summit of intellectual amusements, a nugget of golden wit for all the ages.

  • ||

    "with repeated airings"

    ICWUDT.

  • Saturday Night Rather's House||

  • Saturday Night Rather's House|||

    Slobber slobber bone bone

  • rather||

    Very funny. You do come out the basement once in awhile, don't you?

  • er, no thanks on the invite ||

  • Better Abs Through Queefing||

  • smartass||

    Ah doan theenk they will nominate Ron Paul, omeego.

    But they doan like Rommey boy.

    So I say it's high time we outsourced the POTUS. To some country that presumably gives a shit.

  • ||

    Have you tried ***casualmingle dot 'c o 'm***, a wonderful place where you can find the right one for you or just dating or one night stand thing. It is all up to you, come on and sign up free, nothing loose if you do not like it.

  • frack!||

    I'm looking for a couple of dirty macaques to explain Nim Chimpsky to me. Can you help me out?

  • ||

    Trade cheats beware: new U.S. team will come after you: Kirk

    "Kirk" refers to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk. You know, the former Dallas mayor who coincidentally discovered $10,000 in unpaid taxes when BO nominated him. He would certainly know how cheaters think and how they operate.

    Ask Smoot and Hawley how well trade wars work in fixing recessions.

  • ||

    A new team of U.S. trade enforcers will...

    Isn't that code for "more government"?

  • Maxxx||

    the former Dallas mayor who coincidentally discovered $10,000 in unpaid taxes when BO nominated him.

    Is cheating on your taxes a pre-req for service in Obama's administration?

  • yonemoto||

    so which commentator is secretly a lobbyist?

    I will fess up and admit that 50% of my salary comes from one of those departments that RP wants to eliminate (and Perry can't remember).

  • Xenocles||

    How do you have your salary split like that? Are you a contractor?

  • ||

    Hmmm, I seem to recall the EPA trying to ban lead bullets...not to mention that whole Fast & Furious deal.

    Not exactly nothing...

  • Bingo||

    #NGAF

  • what about the neighbors?||

    Shopping for hum jobs and votes in Tallahassee

    Stop little sister from gettin' carried away...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I don't think we need to be involved in everyone's business," said Charles Fogg, a Vietnam Vet and gun collector.

    "We got people here we could be spending money on. Like health insurance. I believe that universal health care should be done in the United States," he said.

    He's one gun collection removed from being a full-on progressive Democrat.

  • ||

    "I think it's wrong to involve ourselves in other people's business/I think it's a wrongful waste of our resources and isn't justifiable. Also, socialism is awesome. ASSR fuck yeah."

  • wareagle||

    talk about a lack of self-awareness: he thinks it's wrong to involve ourselves in people's business when it comes to their deciding to buy a product available on the open market, like guns for instance, yet it's perfectly acceptable to do so when that product is health insurance. Of course, I guess when the govt co-opts health care en toto and insurance stops being a product, his statement will make more sense. Coffee, please; with a shot of something. Maybe a double.

  • KPres||

    There's probably something about Affirmative Action that didn't get mentioned.

  • frack!||

    Universal care should be done in the U.S., I agree. Just not government sponsored universal care.

  • ||

    You're not going to have universal care unless it's govt sponsored. The free market always excludes some people.

    Now, I think it's a good tradeoff to let the market handle things, but don't pretend it's not a tradeoff.

  • frack!||

    It wouldn't be universal right away. It would take time for prices to come down. Also, considering that so-called universal care systems also must deal with scare goods, they are not actually universal. People sometimes die or suffer tremendously while waiting to get treated, and the quality of that treatment might not be so great. Now universal care which involved very little wait times with high quality guaranteed for all - that would truly be universal.

  • ||

    Nah, Fogg speaks southern, "should be done", as in finished. Breakfast should be done in a minute

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Dave Young, 52, of Tallahassee said he struggled between Paul and Santorum before eventually going with the latter. "Definitely not big government Romney or Newt. Both of them are self confessed progressives and progressives are just slow-motion socialists. I agree with what Dr. Paul says but I liked what Santorum said about the Constituion," he said.

    Wait, what? In what fucking world does this make sense?

  • Don't believe a word||

    "Wait, what? In what fucking world does this make sense?"

    The world of confused Republican politics.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm not sure they're confused so much as intellectually dishonest.

    Republicans and conservatives (generally the same though not always) say they want smaller government, but then when the chips are on the table, they always vote for more and more of it, even when they have a fully fledged chance to follow through with their alleged small government desires and get a legit small government conservative.

    But they can't put their desire to kill others and use the force of government to tell others what they may or may not consume in the privacy of their own homes aside for one fucking minute.

  • ||

    Small govt for conservatives: "don't give money to those other people and don't regulate the things I like"

    Sort of like civil liberties for progressives: "don't restrict people from doing things I approve of"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Bingo.

    They're all talking points from a powerpoint presentation.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The only activities Team Blue would *not* regulate, are:

    getting abortions
    being gay

    What we drive, how much salt or trans-fats or high-fructose corn syrup we may consume (if at all), smoking anywhere but in a free-standing single-residence home (unless kids are within 100 feet of the front entrance, if Team Blue gets their way), and how much money one can make... THOSE things would be regulated. At gunpoint.

  • Jeffersonian||

    That's probably right, though it seems to me that killing some 50 million potential citizens in the womb has had a considerable effect on interstate commerce, no?

  • Realist||

    "Wait, what? In what fucking world does this make sense?"
    It doesn't have to make sense this is a Democracy and when everyone can vote, everyone loses.

  • ||

    Wait, what? In what fucking world does this make sense?

    In a world where no one actually knows or cares what the Constitution says.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I totally believe in smaller government, and I will use the lean, mean government that I create to ensure godless heathen homosexuals can never marry each other. Because the Bible says so.

  • Brett L||

    This is Tallahassee, People's Republic of Leon County. Something like 35% of the jobs are either state or school (we have 2 universities and a community college all of which have at least 10k students). Our Republican party is a strange mixture, of compassionate conservatives, evangelicals, and people who used to be Democrats but hate some local politician. We have lots of Paul fans, but they are mostly anarchists, libertarians, and civil-libertarian Democrats.

  • Yawn||

    This site needs A.M. Links, stat!

  • stat||

    As you wish.

    Facebook 'to go public with $10bn share offering'

    Now, it's your turn.

  • rather||

    At least 10% of the population says that farting in jars can reduce the effect of global warming.

  • Yawn||

  • romulus augustus||

    Cognitive dissonance on display. Unfortunately for libertarians, about 95% of the population has this disease.

  • Rhet Orical||

    Is David Axelrod a worm?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The New York Times "reluctantly" changes its position on the judicial/executive branch affirmation process based on Obama having problems getting appointments affirmed.

    It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.

    This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution.

    Who the fuck knew the Times is in favor of expanding the power of the (Team BLUE) executive while limiting the Senate's ability to block his unilateral decision making?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Linky for ^^

  • MNG||

    You can suspect the timing of this change, but the use of the filibsuster to block once routine judicial and executive appointments is one that has really increased lately (both sides doing it) in the recent decade, right? It's not remarkable that at some point people might say "ok, this is out of hand..."

    I don't think some anti-majoritarianism is a bad thing. But we already have that built into the Senate where each state, regardless of size, gets the same vote. The filibuster is not called for explicitly in the Constitution, and I think with good reason. It's totally built on a fiction everyone knows not to be true (no one really calls it to engage in debate anymore but to stop something), that's never a good base for an important governmental practice imo. More importantly, at some point the ability of a minority to block the majority becomes something like minority rule, and for all of the problems with majority rule minority rule is worse.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Obama had a filibuster proof Senate for 2 years. He has no excuses.

  • ||

    Obama never had more than 59 Democrats at one time, due to Ted Kennedy's illness and the ridiculous delay in seating Al Franken,

  • cynical||

    Still, it truly says something about the man if he can't offer a candidate appealing to even the wobbliest, most moderate Republican.

  • MNG||

    "it truly says something about the man if he can't offer a candidate appealing to even the wobbliest, most moderate Republican."

    Or it says something about the GOP these days...

  • Jeffersonian||

    Can't Maximum Leader Obama sweep the filibuster aside like he did with the Senate's adjournment rules?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The only thing ridiculous in the delay of seating Al Franken is that it doesn't last until after the heat-death of the universe.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So how was it that he was able to ram Obamacare through without a single Republican vote, nor their ability to filibuster it?

    Don't tell me he can get the most controversial legislation in a generation passed without nary a Republican vote, but he's sorely lacking for support for judicial appointments.

  • ||

    Not true.

    Franken was seated July 7, 2009.
    Kennedy was replaced by Democrat Paul Kirk Sept 24, 2009 who remained in office until Feb 4, 2010.

    So they had 60 senators for several months.

  • MNG||

    Was he supposed to ram through all his nominations during those "several months?"

    Also, wasn't Byrd sick through mch of that period?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, he was sick... and I'm hoping he suffered mightily during that period.

    And, yes, I'd say the same thing if Byrd were a Republican.

  • ||

    "Also, wasn't Byrd sick through mch of that period?"

    Nope. Excuse fails.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Damn. Well, at least he died.

  • ||

    2:03 is a spoof.

    But Byrd was present in the Senate for most of that time, so it really isn't an excuse.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Well, just damn.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It takes time to steal that many votes.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It takes time to steal that many votes.

  • ||

    So you're saying the NYT was too stupid to realize the horrible effect of the filibuster back during the Bush administration?

    Republicans were making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT back then. This is a clear case of partisanship on the NYT's part.

  • MNG||

    "Republicans were making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT back then."

    And the longer something goes on the more likely someone might think its going to far, right?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I somehow doubt that Dubya facing these same issues was considered some kind of hurdle that must be tackled. And I doubt that anyone in the building would think so now.

  • ||

    That's not a plausible interpretation given the reversal of filibuster and filibustee.

    My nieces like to play that same game. My foolish sister has them "time-share" their toys, which results in the one who had exclusive use of the toy first whining about how the other one won't share after they switch. Precisely what the NYT is doing, though they do have a richer vocabulary.

    If the NYT wants to wait until 2014 to change the rules, that would make more sense. That way the Dems would have had 6 years of filibustering and the GOP would have had the same amount of time.

  • ||

    ^spoof

  • ||

    And "minority rule" implies that the minority has the power to make rules. Which the filibuster doesn't grant in the slightest.

    The filibuster is not called for explicitly in the Constitution, and I think with good reason.

    Neither are Medicare or Social Security or the Labor Relations Board. Perhaps we can make a deal.

  • MNG||

    "minority rule" implies that the minority has the power to make rules. Which the filibuster doesn't grant in the slightest."

    I realize this is a sticking point for libertarians, but being able to block everything the majority wants to do is a form of ruling itself.

    Imagine RP were to win the POTUS and bring in a majority of like minded folks in both house. Riding on a wave of mass support for smaller, constitutional government he goes on to, true to his word, try to enact his program, moving this nation much closer to Libertopia, proposing repeal of everything you guys want repealed.

    And the Senate filibuster stops him cold on every single thing. Would you then be singing praises to the filibuster and saying "well, at least those guys aren't ruling us, they're just preventing someone else from ruling us!"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue, should they find themselves in the minority again, will do *exactly* what Team Red did, re: filibustering and obstructionism.

    And sensible people will cheer it on.

  • ||

    "wants to do is a form of ruling itself."

    Profoundly wrong and stupid.

  • MNG||

    Not as profoundly stupid as just writing "profoundly stupid and wrong" as a response to what I said...

  • ||

    That was a spoof of me, not me.

  • ||

    "Not as profoundly stupid as just writing "profoundly stupid and wrong" as a response to what I said..."

    Yes, I agree, what I said is much less profoundly wrong and stupid.

    Thanks for agreeing that what you said is profoundly wrong and stupid.

  • ||

    I might not be singing the praises of filibusters in that scenario, but I sure as hell wouldn't be urging the Senate to get rid of it just cause it's hurting my side now.

    It's one thing to bristle at your opponent abusing (in your opinion) the rules, quite another to try to change them in the middle of the game.

  • cynical||

    The NYT has a date rapist's understanding of consent. Sure, no means no, but if you don't get an answer at all, assume "yes".

    Decent people understand that "consent" indicates an affirmative answer, and also requires that a person's agency is unburdened (e.g., by duress or extreme intoxication).

    Of course, the NYT is a fascist rag. I do hope that if things ever do turn into a dictatorship and we manage to escape it, they remove the mask so completely in the dark days that reading them afterwards is grounds for social ostracism.

  • Jeffersonian||

    This will expire the moment Team Blue is no longer in a position to nominate judges.

  • MNG||

    We often get stories about left wing groups getting their outrage on over silly squabbles with groups. But the right is trying to keep up:

    "The culture wars in this country have grown so acute that we can’t even agree to support a patriotic, faith-affirming, achievement-oriented group like the Girl Scouts.

    But some religious conservatives see something very different: representatives of a dangerous, secular organization that aggressively promotes abortion and quietly encourages paganism, homosexuality and other alleged social ailments.

    It’s ill-informed nonsense. Nonetheless, it’s spawned a smear campaign against the Girl Scouts that’s starting to have an impact, including in our region."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z3

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The culture war is about the dumbest thing going. From both sides. Nothing is more annoying than either religious nutbags or cosmos doing everything in their power to mandate their idea of a superior culture.

  • The Chat-O-Tariat||

    religious nutbags or cosmos

    Hey! What about us?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Way past time for a halt to social engineering.

    ALL social engineering.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Occupy Oakland protestor finds it "bizarre" that the police would dare try and keep protestors from infiltrating an unoccupied privately owned building (no pun intended) for their own use.

    A march to take over a vacant building by members of the Occupy movement in Oakland, Calif., turned into a violent confrontation with the police on Saturday, leaving three officers injured and about 200 people arrested.

    The clashes began just before 3 p.m. when protesters marched toward the vacant Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center, the police said, and began to tear down construction barricades. Officers ordered the crowd to disperse when protesters “began destroying construction equipment and fencing,” the Oakland police said in a press release.

    “Officers were pelted with bottles, metal pipe, rocks, spray cans, improvised explosive devices and burning flares, the police said.” Officers responded with smoke, tear gas and beanbag projectiles. Twenty people were arrested.

    [. . .]

    Mr. Phillips, who said he is a veteran of the United States Air Force, spoke Saturday night from his home on Grand Avenue where he had stopped to rinse tear-gas residue from his contact lenses. He described the scene in front of the Y.M.C.A. as “terrifying.”

    “This is disgusting, because this is not the way that America is supposed to work,” he said. “You’re supposed to be able to have something like freedom to assemble and air your grievances,” he said.

    “It’s bizarre,” he said of the police reaction. “It’s not something you expect to see in the United States, and we’ve seen it over and over in Oakland.”

    In America, people are just supposed to be able to break in to and appropriate private property for their own use just because they want to?

    Who the fuck knew?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The trend of demonizing private-property ownership continues...

  • Derper TPM||

    One person defecated on a cop car.
    All orders by the police are lawful orders.
    Disobeying police means you deserve to be beaten severely.
    No one knows what occupiers want.
    Drum circles.
    Smelly hippies.
    Get a job.
    Entitled.
    Class warfare.
    I bet they had ipads.

    Did I Miss anything?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes... you left out the part where a group of hooligans tried to break into private property without permission from the people who own it.

  •  ||

    Facts, schmacts.

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If that post on DU doesn't epitomize the Occupados' sense of entitlement, nothing can.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And that's just *one* DU thread on the subject of Occutards.

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • mad libertarian guy||

    These people are the absolute dumbest people on earth.

    Right to work doesn't mean there can't be unionization, but that workers have the option to NOT be FORCED in to paying for them as a condition to working.

    What they're protesting is not Indiana as they embark off as a Right to Work state, but that they know as a matter of fact that without being forced to join/pay for unions, there numbers and bankroll will drop because a good portion of the workforce will choose to tell the unions to fuck off.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "there", of course, should be "their".

  • juris imprudent||

    Dumbass lefties: if you don't do as we demand you aren't free and we are being oppressed.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    For lefties, it's all about force. The end result is almost irrelevant so long as they can force others to pay for their plans.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's a wonder some people can dress themselves without a pamphlet from the Department of Getting Up in the Morning.

  • Maxxx||

  • Occupado||

    The horror!

    People waiting on a more favorable market in an attempt to make money!

    That should be ILLEGAL!!

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'd level the fucker first.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    One person defecated on a cop car.

    Excellent!

    All orders by the police are lawful orders.

    Who said that?

    Disobeying police means you deserve to be beaten severely.

    Projecting much?

    No one knows what occupiers want.

    No. Occupiers know exactly what they want. They also know that if they were to articulate it clearly for public consumption they would be even more soundly rejected than they already have been.

    Drum circles.

    In the context, they're not the most effective means of being taken seriously.

    Smelly hippies.

    They annoy you too?

    Get a job.

    Uh . . . yes.

    Entitled.

    Now you're catching on.

    Class warfare.

    They learned from the Class Warrior in Chief.

    I bet they had ipads.

    Hey! We DO have something in common!

  • ||

    " All orders by the police are lawful orders.

    Who said that?"

    I DID BITCH, now get on the ground and present your asshole.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    Did I Miss anything?

    RAAAAAAAAAAPE!!

  • Cytotoxic||

    I know the people here aren't a big fan of police or the force they use, but they will probably have to get real physical confronting the Occuholes. I hope people keep that in mind.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Even from the most libertarian point of view, police protecting private property is perfectly legitimate. Protecting citizens and their property from others should be their ONLY duty.

    The use of police force should be minimized and used appropriately (which I fear it won't and is a separate matter), but the use of force to combat force while in the course of performing their legitimate duties is NOT unwarranted. And if they were to fail in their duty to protect citizens and their property, it should be taken as a sign that we citizens should be able to protect our property by whichever means we feel most appropriate, which, in some cases, would likely be far harsher than most anything the police would dole out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    +

  • Jeffersonian||

    Word. "Sod off, Swampy" write large.

  • Private Idaho||

    Idaho House votes to evict Boise Occupiers. All three of them.

  • Rhet Orical||

    This place is quiet. Too quiet.
    Did somebody declare a blackout?
    Why was I not tweeted?

  • ||

    A candidates stand on the second amendment has always been my litmus test. It is very simple; a pro-second amendment person is very likely ( I am unaware of any that arent) to be very pro-liberty, pro-citizen, pro-small government. It is a sign that they think people should be self-reliant and that the citizens life and liberty take precedence over other considerations. This gives you a good predictor of how they view a whole range of issues.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Pro 2A = Pro Liberty?

    You serious? Pro 2A is a basic starting point, but that's the very beginning of it.

  • ||

    I said litmus test for how they might stand on a variety of issues.

    See Tulpa's valid point below.....but still it is a pretty reliable test.

  • ||

    "I said litmus test for how they might stand on a variety of issues."

    "A candidates stand on the second amendment has always been my litmus test."

    No, you pathetic mendacious fuck, you didn't.

    And no you lying asshole, it's not in the rest of that streaming pile you posted either.

  • ||

    GWB was pro second amendment.

  • ||

    good point, but it is certainly a good place to start. Anyone who is anti-gun would never get my vote under any circumstances.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Being anti drug war, in my opinion, is a much better litmus test for liberty.

    But I agree. I would NEVER vote for ANYONE not sufficiently in favor of 2A rights.

  • ||

    I am not sure 'much better', but it is good for the same reasons.

    The dunphy spoofer below should probably back up his ad hominem with something...anything....

    dumphy, explain, asshole.

  • ||

    "dumphy, explain, asshole."

    You said something colossally stupid.

    What else would you like explained crybaby?

  • ||

    fake name, fake email, vacuous argument. *sigh*

  • ||

    "vacuous argument."
    "ad hominem"

    You really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about do you?

    "explain, asshole."

    Making you angry is fun, especially when you're too fucking stupid to see I didn't use an ad hominem and didn't make an argument.

  • ||

    Hmmm. I said something you didnt like so you responded with " Yuur stoopid!"

    I said " Oh, how is that?"

    You respond with " Yuur just really....stoopid!"

    Perhaps you could stop eating your own dingleberries long enough to make a valid criticism?

  • ||

    "I said something you didnt like"

    NO, you said something stupid.

    "I said " Oh, how is that?""

    Lie.

    "" Yuur just really....stoopid!""

    The truth hurts.

    "Perhaps you could stop eating your own dingleberries"

    I'M FIVE!!!!

    Cry more now.

  • ||

    "long enough to make a valid criticism?"

    Your posts betray your deep personal feelings of insignificance.

    There, you got what you asked for, I think you'll probably still cry though.

  • ||

    FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, STOP SPOOFING ME AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

  • Jesus Christ, calm down sister||

    Seriously.

  • Jesus Christ, calm down sister||

    "There, you got what you asked for, I think you'll probably still cry though."

    "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE, STOP SPOOFING ME AND ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION."

    Yeah, I called that...

  • killazontherun||

    To a tiny extent. He also supported the asinine 'assault' rifle ban. Fortunately, the rest of the GOP told him, 'you're a motherfucking useless douche, Bush. Get out of the motherfucking way before we cap in your lazy ass.' And he did.

  • ||

    ASSAULT ***WEAPONS*** ban.

  • ||

    "A candidates stand on the second amendment has always been my litmus test."

    What a colossally stupid thing to admit.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This is the kind of future we'll have if the Occutards are sufficiently whipped into a froth:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....25182.html

  • Random Liberal||

    Libertarians are anarchists!

    Oh, wait...

  • Brett L||

    But not the "cool" anarchists who wear black hoodies and throw shit through store windows.

  • -||

    Anarchists are so uncool that even (most) libertarians won't have them. They are merely tolerated, like your sister's autistic child.

  • ||

    except here, sadly. there is a strain of funhouse mirror libertarianism amongst some that almost makes one pine for anarchists

    my favorite was the person who said DUI shouldn't be illegal UNLESS and UNTIL the driver actually injured somebody.

    love that stuff

  • Of course you do||

    "love that stuff"

    You're a statist fuck and a rights abuser, you love any excuse to stick your pigshit covered snout in other peoples business.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm sorry... was there a politician commenting on here, "Of course you do"? Because you just described virtually every one of them just then.

  • ||

    right. because DUI should solely be s personal decision and the state should have no authoritah to criminalize or investigate it

    ANARCHY FOREVAH!!!!

  • And you're an idiot too||

    "because DUI should solely be s personal decision and the state should have no authoritah to criminalize or investigate it"

    Don't recall seeing anyone say that fuckwit.

    But you can regulate it when you demonstrate who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk.

    Since the answer is no one, you're gonna have a hard time.

  • ||

    lol. thank you for demonstrating my point. that aint libertarianism. it's idiocy.

    by this legal "reasoning". firing randomly into a crowd should not be illegal until and unless a bullet hits somebody

    exact same "logic".

    it's why i love the idiocy of the funhouse mirror fake libertarians here.

    the lulz are awesum

  • Still waiting||

    But you can regulate it when you demonstrate who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk.

    Since the answer is no one, you're gonna have a hard time.

  • Still waiting||

    "by this legal "reasoning". firing randomly into a crowd should not be illegal until and unless a bullet hits somebody"

    Moronic analogy, but still the best you could do.

  • ||

    lol. again. PERFECT

    i used to think ur ilk wasn't serious. i am beginning to believe you are

    again, just PERFECT

    thank you

  • Still waiting||

    "thank you"

    No on, than you, you once again proved you're not above childish games when you can't answer a question, which is as good as admitting I'm right.

    Thanks again.

  • ||

    I can't answer because no one is harmed.

  • Still waiting||

    And by the way, I didn't ask you for an analogy. I asked you who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk

    You cannot answer without proving me right.

    Hence, your profoundly simple and incorrect analogy.

    Just answer the question guy, your analogies suck, and arguing by analogy is what people with a weak argument do.

  • Still waiting||

    And by the way, I didn't ask you for an analogy. I asked you who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk

    You cannot answer without proving me right.

    Hence, your profoundly simple and incorrect analogy.

    Just answer the question guy, your analogies suck, and arguing by analogy is what people with weak argument do.

  • ||

    your logical fallacy is the assumption that harm must occur for an action to be reasonably proscribed by the law

    if a person fires randomly into a crowd, and nobody is hit. nobody is harmed. but the act is correctly - illegal

    also, as for inchoate crimes (which are different due to intent, but not due to result), if a person intends to murder a person and goes and shoots at (what he thinks) is the person sleeping in a sleeping bag, but is in fact just an empty sleeping bag... nobody is harmed

    however, the crime is still attempted murder.

    in both examples, (one where specific intent existed, and the other where the act is merely dangerous), there is a risk to others, that society and the law have correctly viewed rises to a criminal level.

    considering that we have reduced driving fatalities by 4/5 in a few decades, i'd say we are doing damned good job

    also, note on an offense, if an officer interrupts before somebody is harmed, it's still illegal.

    and should be

    your argument is stupid. i would doubt more than 1% of libertarians would do anything but lol at you. i am giving you enuf credit to explain it to you, although i realize it will likely do little good

  • ||

    In other words, no one is harmed and I have to splatter a wall of text to make a stupid analogy about one thing, which is out of control after being done, and another thing, which is not.

    Yes, I know they are totally different, but I'm fucking stupid and have no rational argument for my position.

  • ||

    nobody is harmed when a person fires randomly into a crowd "successfully" such that nobody is hit

    it should still be, and IS, illegal

    hth

  • ||

    "nobody is harmed when a person fires randomly into a crowd "successfully" such that nobody is hit"

    Every time I post this though, keep in mind, I'm too fucking stupid to admit that it's not the same as a car, because the bullet is uncontrolled after leaving the barrel.

    I know that was posted repeatedly, I just hate to admit I'm wrong, like I am now.

  • ||

    by this legal "reasoning". firing randomly into a crowd should not be illegal until and unless a bullet hits somebody

    I don't agree with rando troll, but this is fucking dumb.

    You shoot a gun and you don't control the bullet after it left the barrel.

    You are still in control of the car even if you're drunk.

  • ||

    except that's not the operative distinction

    the claim is that if NOBODY IS HARMED, it is not correctly made illegal

    that's stupid

  • ||

    "the claim is that if NOBODY IS HARMED, it is not correctly made illegal"

    Of course, I am the only one making that claim, because I am fucking stupid.

    The person who proved me wrong never made such a claim.

  • ||

    except that's not the operative distinction

    We know asshole, that's the whole point.

    Seriously dunphy, stop playing dumb for a minute.

  • ||

    no, the whole point is that the premise "if nobody is harmed, it should not be illegal" is stupid

    nobody is harmed in many cases when a person fires randomly into a crowd

    nobody is harmed when a person hires a contract killer, but the crime is thwarted while still in progress

    etc.

    seriously, i'm surprised you are this stupid

    if you want to adhere to this stupid premise, feel free

    the rest of us will continue to live in the real world

  • YOU MADE THE ANALOGY ASSHOLE||

    "no, the whole point is that the premise "if nobody is harmed, it should not be illegal" is stupid"

    No one is arguing that asshole.

    Can you read?

  • ||

    no, the whole point is that the premise "if nobody is harmed, it should not be illegal" is stupid

    And you'll find that if you spent less time polisihing your badge and more time comprehending the point of the debate, that no one made that claim.

    Care to try again, but this time, actually read what you're failing to refute?

  • ||

    "except that's not the operative distinction"

    The law is THE LAW ASSHOLES!!

  • YOU MADE THE ANALOGY ASSHOLE||

    "except that's not the operative distinction"

    It is in your stupid fucking analogy.

    So either your analogy is wrong or you are.

    Decide and be ridiculed.

  • -||

    Oh, look!
    The autistic anarchist learned (almost) how to type in English!

  • -||

    (Directed, of course, at the "Of course you do" puppet)

  • -||

    I am trying sooooo hard!

  • Where's Suthenboy to whine||

    ^About you not using a proper handle?

  • ||

    I am not sure that pointing out that you are a dishonest cowardly fuckstain is the same as whining.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So long as we don't have an Occupy Wilmore, let the city folk deal with 'em.

    If they do come out here, Scalia, via Heller, did codify in to law the 2nd amendment right to defense of person and property . . .

  • Jeffersonian||

    The occutards' biggest problem right now is that they believe their own "99%" propaganda, which leads them to believe there is a groundswell of support just below the surface that will rise up at any moment to join them. There is nothing approaching a tenth of that, so we're in for an amusing few months of dirty hippies, blinkered leftists and big-government anarchists getting booted out of any number of venues.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That they are true believers is indeed an issue.

    They sincerely believe that they speak for the masses, when really the masses just wants them to shut the fuck up.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Occasionally, HuffPo does a decent story:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....f=politics

    The comments, however, are still mostly stoopid.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "Mostly" stoopid?

    The comments there are a vast sea of stoopidity.

  • El Commentariosa||

    How is Balko surviving???

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's a faint glimmer of sensibility there now and again, MLG.

    One would have to comb years of DU posts to find any of that, however.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I agree. HuffPo, though prone to stupidity, doesn't subscribe to a straight (S) ticket. Someone over there has brains; they hired Balko after all.

  • ||

    I'm not usually one to jump into conspiracy theories, but I have to imagine it was embarrassing for the HuffPo leftists to see the most cutting-edge civil liberties reporting in the country being done for a "right wing" magazine like Reason.

  • ||

    libs hate cognitive dissonance.

    props to them for hiring balko

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It would be interesting to get a liberal dumbshit/non-liberal dumbshit headcount on sites like HuffPo... but it would be virtually impossible to get an accurate reading, and depressing besides.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    There may be something to that, though, in all fairness, it seems to me that Glenn Greenwald could also make a claim to most cutting-edge civil liberties writer, and he actually is a liberal.

  • ||

    balko is FAR from the most cutting edge, or the best. he's just damn good.

    greenwald is excellent, i agree

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then again, HuffPo still puts some grade-A stoopid on their site:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....tions-2012

  • ||

    The author of that article is christine pelosi. pelosi, need i say more?

    You should not post links like that, you are causing brain damage to Reason readers.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I do it so people don't have to read 'em. Best to keep an eye on the likes of Pelosii as opposed to letting them run roughshod.

  • ||

    that article was awful. although her race card crap on the uillegal immigration issue reminds me of a few posters here.

    who, of course, would NEVER call ron paul racist for having antiILLEGAL immigration positions

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • Jeffersonian||

    Anti-bacon?? I'm going to conveniently turn my head when the local Five-O comes to beat this madman to the pavement.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I wonder how serious the sign-holder was.

    Either way... it's. Not. Funny.

    Well, the pic is, but not the sentiment.

  • ||

    kicked in a door yesterday.

    two dogs inside. sheperd and rottweiler

    no shooting commenced.

    no film at 11. no reason article, where i could critique my UOF. oh well

  • ||

    And by the way, I didn't ask you for an analogy. I asked you who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk

    You cannot answer without proving me right.

    Hence, your profoundly simple and incorrect analogy.

    Just answer the question guy, your analogies suck, and arguing by analogy is what people with a weak argument do.

  • ||

    I can't answer because no one is harmed.

  • ||

    spoofer above. and thanks for outing yourself as the troll, epi. even though i had little doubt

    again, the fallacy is that somebody must be harmed

    in attempted murder, nobody is harmed (although THERE is a different mens rea)

    in shooting into a crowd, nobody is HARMED

    that is not the correct metric to use

    IF you use, it leads to a deductively valid argument

    the issue is the unsound premise

    i would agree, as a libertarian, that if somebody wants to drunk drive on a PRIVATE road where there is ZERO danger of anybody being on it and getting harmed, it should be legal

    or, in certain contracted situations where everybody realizes the risk on private property - e.g. the indy 500.

    stuff like that.

    again, your fallacy lies in the premise, which is not libertarian. it's just stupid

  • ||

    again, the fallacy is that somebody must be harmed

    Nope. Keep proving you can't read.

  • MNG||

    I really enjoy when dunphy posts long rambling diatribes that totally ignore the point he thinks he's refuting.

  • ||

    again, thank you epi for outing yourself as a troll. not that it needed confirmation at this point (hint: you forgot to change your handle back)

    and thank you for making the stupid argument that DUI should not be illegal unless and until somebody is hurt

    it is the kind of rank idiocy that gives me lulz because i realize that even amongst libertarians, there are mindless idiots, just like with liberals and conservatives.

    it humanizes us

  • ||

    and thank you for making the stupid argument that DUI should not be illegal unless and until somebody is hurt

    If you weren't such a dishonest liar, you'd admit I never made that claim.

  • ||

    You're correct, you did not say that explicitly.

  • ||

    You're correct, you did not say that explicitly.

    So you lied.

    We knew that.

  • ||

    the above is a spoof/. probably you

  • Episiarch||

    the above is a spoof/. probably you

    So, you get caught lying and think an ad hominem is going to change that?

    You're still a lair, we knew that.

  • Still waiting||

    And by the way, I didn't ask you for an analogy. I asked you who is harmed by someone successfully driving home drunk

    You cannot answer without proving me right.

    Hence, your profoundly simple and incorrect analogy.

    Just answer the question guy, your analogies suck, and arguing by analogy is what people with weak argument do.

  • ||

    nobody is harmed. JUST like in an at tempted murder that is thwarted or unsuccessfully done, or a guy who shoots into a crowd but doesn't hit anybody. it's a bogus metric.

    but keep touting it

  • Intent||

    "nobody is harmed. JUST like in an at tempted murder that is thwarted or unsuccessfully done, "

    Intent says your analogy is stupid and you're a liar. Again.

  • ||

    fwiw, reason, volokh.com and many other sites have had excellent commentary on the idea that .08 as a legal standard may be too low. that's a REASONable discussion that intelligent people can learn from each other, differ on, and/or come to common ground.

    reasonable libertarians recognize that, as an extreme example, nobody should be allowed to step behind the wheel at a .30, and that it shouldn't be illegal to be behind the wheel at a .04

    the question becomes "where is the logical place to set a prima facie limit"? etc.

    but only a complete fool would argue that driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right, unless and until somebody hurts somebody.

    that is just so INSANE it deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule

  • ||

    volokh.com and many other sites have had excellent commentary on the idea that .08 as a legal standard may be too low.

    They've had far more discussion that it's both unconstitutional and ineffective as a measure of impairment.

    But you ignore that.

  • ||

    Shit, my stupid pathetic attempt to appeal to authority failed.

    I guess I'll just make another stupid fucking analogy.

  • ||

    i have seen no argument under theories as to why it's unconstitutional

    driving is not a constitutional right

    please point me to one of these arguments

    again, this is just the stupid fringe spouting

    thank god, REAL libertarians e.g. ron paul et al would never legalize "successful" drunk driving

  • ||

    "i have seen no argument under theories as to why it's unconstitutional"

    Of course I think people said "driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right" so what I think is pretty fucking useless.

  • MNG||

    i have seen no argument under theories as to why it's unconstitutional

    Your ignorance was never in doubt.

    driving is not a constitutional right

    Which has fuckall to do with this.

    please point me to one of these arguments

    As soon as you point me to the person who claimed "driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right"

    again, this is just the stupid fringe spouting

    Don;t be so hard on yourself, you're not that fringy.

  • Knock it off dude||

    You're gonna get a homeless guy beaten, don;t you know dunphy rolls with people like Seattle PD?

  • MNG||

    You cowardly hiding and total failure to provide a link says pretty much everything that needs to be said about you.

  • Apatheist||

    REAL libertarians would never try to backdoor the argument that it's the states responsibility to protect people from potential harm with tool that don't measure what they claim to.

    Thanks for outing yourself.

  • You keep hammering straw men ||

    "but only a complete fool would argue that driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right"

    Not arguing that fuckwit.

    Why pretend they are?

    Oh right, cause you know you're wrong.

  • ||

    troll, that was the argument made

    denial doesn't change that

  • Keep proving you can't read||

    "that was the argument made"

    No it wasn't.

    "driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right"

    Post a quote that shows anyone other than you claimed that or admit you're a lair.

  • ||

    again, the argument was that since nobody was harmed, it should not be illegal

    that is EXACTLY what i stated.

  • Stop lying||

    the argument was that since nobody was harmed, it should not be illegal

    No it wasn't.

    Can't you read?

  • ||

    Hi I'm dunphy, when I'm wrong I claim people said things they didn't, just like when I'm policing, like my bros in the Seattle PD.

  • dunphy is a lair||

    "driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right"

    "the argument was that since nobody was harmed, it should not be illegal

    that is EXACTLY what i stated"

    How fucking stupid must one be to think those statements are "EXACTLY the same"?

  • MNG||

    driving, no matter how "drunk" should be a legal right
    was the argument made

    By you, no one else.

    That's the reason you're roundly despised, you lie.

  • ||

    Sounds prety reasnable to me dude.

    www.pc-privacy.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement