Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

[safety1]

Wake me when the session is over!!!!

[safety1]

So are we nearing a "Call To Action" ???

[baseballguy2001]

Wow -- I like quite a bit of that long post. Do I like everything? No.

My favorites below --

1.0 Personal Liberty - Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. If you decide to make risky investments, don't expect a bailout if you lose everything. If you ride a Harley, without a helmet in the rain and wind up paralyzed, I won't be contributing to your hospital bill. If you try and enter my house uninvited at 3am, I won't help pay for your funeral. (See 1.1-risks)

1.1 Self-Ownership - Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. I smoke unfiltered cigarettes and drink Schlitz. Govt. Stooges can either have a cold one with me, or get off my lawn.

1.2 Expression and Communication - We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. [So no laws against Sharia Law.] - If you want to start a religious sect that worships cats, fine. -- no govt. stooge can make me join, or participate.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security - Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. -- If you didn't plan, that's not my problem.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination - Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect. It takes parents to raise a child, not a village. I don't have any, and I won't help you raise your kids. But a portion of my property tax goes to the school district to educate your disrespectful, entitled, fat, kids. So, at a minimum could you at least teach them to say 'yes sir' and 'yes ma'am'. 'Please' and 'thank you' would be nice, but they're your kids after all.

3.1 National Defense - We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. Personally, I don't support ANY military action unless a vital AMERICAN national interest is at stake. I could care less about your average Libyan, Syrian, Spanish, Mexican, or French citizen around the world. Reagan had it right -- When the Mad Man of the Mediterranean tried to mess with America, our flyboys flew all the way around French and Spanish territory to avoid their airspace to carry out an air raid that shut up Colonel Gaddafi for quite a while. No regime change, no invasion. AND NO NATION BUILDING.

[jerry_r60]

Terry Holcomb of Texas Carry stated on facebook today that 910 is moving forward this week, but they are removing the amendment that prohibited officers from asking for ID without probable cause.
:/

And to Charles, Terry may not be as well connected, but he does share! Haha.

Probably part of the reason he's not so well connected.

[jerry_r60]

So are we nearing a "Call To Action" ???

Call to action usually comes with a Message Thread labeled as such.

[CJD]

. . . it's hard to NOT be a card carrying Libertarian. . . . What's not to like?

Pretty much everything. Libertarians love to promote only two or three of the Libertarian Party's Platform planks like gun rights and smaller government. The vast majority of its Platform is either dangerously naive or outright crazy.

https://www.lp.org/platform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

May I ask which points in particular you don't like?

Okay, here goes.

• 1.0 Personal Liberty
  No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. [Unworkable, naïve and dangerous.]

This is the basic tenet by which other libertarian ideals originate. I do not envision a circumstance where I support someone initiating force against another.

1.1 Self-Ownership
Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. [Dangerously naive approach that has proven devastating throughout history.]

Portugal legalized all drugs, and has since seen a decrease in usage and drug related deaths:
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years ... -happening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1.2 Expression and Communication
We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion. [So no laws against Sharia Law.]

Sharia law would necessarily "aid" the Muslim religion.

1.4 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. [Yes, the government most certainly does and every government in recorded history has enacted such regulations. “Anything goes” does not create a country or environment any normal person wants to live in and raise their children. While LP anarchists don't want God in government, most Americans do.]

This is an example of where since someone does not like something or believes something, they believe others should have to follow suit. I do not believe religion belongs in government, and no one should be forced to live under the religion of another. Similar to your Sharia law example, would you want Christians to be forced to live under this?

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. [So much for personal freedom! The LP doesn’t even want laws protecting the most vulnerable from being murdered. Why stop at the unborn, LP? Why not allow the killing of anyone under the age of majority?]

This is not as cut and dry as who supports murder or not. The issue of abortion does not stem from differences in morality, but different personal definitions of when a person becomes "alive." Not everyone shares the same opinion, but that does not mean that people who have the opposing opinion are evil. There are libertarians on both sides of the issue, but the main point is that the government should not be involved in defining this for others, nor should any person's opinion be forced on others. This issue is particularly deep, with many facets on either side, but I do not wish to go into which side or the other I believe because it is irrelevant.

1.6 Crime and Justice
such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. [So, are DWI laws “unjust” in the eyes of the LP? How about fire codes, building codes, elevator codes, etc.?]

I don't know the official party platform, but I know many libertarians see them as such. Firstly, the intoxication limit is arbitrarily defined. Putting someone in jail because they are past this arbitrary limit, and "might" hurt someone, is reminiscent of pre-crime, and reminds me of anti-gunners who want to ban guns because someone "might" commit a crime. A main point of libertarianism is for there to be a crime, there must be a victim. If someone drives after drinking, but hurts no one, then from a libertarian perspective they have done nothing wrong. As soon as they are reckless enough to cause someone else harm, then the full force of law should come down on them. And, perhaps, not letting them straight back onto the road, as often happens now, might prevent this person from racking up multiple instances of the same crime. Each person should be responsible for their own actions, and if these actions infringe upon others, then they should be punished. As for fire codes, etc, the people in charge of buildings and elevators would be held criminally and civilly liable if they are reckless in regards to fire or elevator safety.

2.0 Economic Liberty
or to control or manage trade[So no laws dealing with foreign trade. Any country an embargo or tax American goods, but the U.S. government cannot respond to protect American manufacturers or merchants.]

I will say I am not informed enough on this topic to answer your concerns.

2.1 Property and Contract
Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. [ Presumably no HOA rules or deed covenants either, so my neighbor can live in a rat-infested pig pen and I can’t do anything about it.]

So you're asking, if your neighbor is living in a way that you don't agree with, you can't force him to live how you prefer? No, libertarianism doesn't support forcing opinions on others.

2.2 Environment
Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. [This section is pretty much babbling with any substance. However, the highlighted sentences were proven wrong in the early days of the oil industry throughout the country. Nothing changed until the government stepped in.]

Again, I am not informed enough on this topic to weigh in.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending
We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes. [Interesting. No taxes, therefore no revenue, but a balanced budget? The military is to protect us, but there will be no funds to support military forces.]

It doesn't say no taxes, it says no income tax. The US did fine before income taxes were established in 1913. I can see, however, how the LP probably also disagrees with tariffs, and acknowledge that the combination of these 2 is unworkable.

2.8 Education
we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education. [More meaningless babble. It means no public education which is so ludicrous that only someone smoking hash could come up with this garbage.]

Free markets generally result in an equilibrium with maximum market efficiency and total surplus.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security
We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. [Read just a few history books and this delusion is quickly dispelled.]

This again simply stems from the government not forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Someone should not be forced to invest, the same as they should not be forced to buy health insurance.

3.1 National Defense
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. [Perhaps the LP doesn’t realize this is not the 18th century. No U.S. troops, facilities, aircraft or ships outside the U.S. That’s national suicide.]

I can understand both sides of this, but I agree we are not the policemen of the world. At least a toning-down is in order.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have. [No classified information? Why have an intelligence agency if everything must be published.]

I can see how this would cause problems.

3.3 International Affairs
We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. [These people are flat out crazy! So no alliances, no defense of Israel or any other critical partner.]

I think a major issue in this is using tax dollars to give to other countries. This forces people who do not support certain ideas (supporting Israel for example) to pay for it anyway.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration
Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. [More lunacy! Open the borders to people and money. Only recently did the LP add the last sentence about keeping out dangerous people, according to their other policies and 3.4, would be impossible.]

The only thing I can say to this is that, again, free markets generally come to equilibrium with the maximum net surplus.

[/list]

When people take the time to read and learn what the Libertarian Party really is and what it advocates, they run from it like the plague.

I think most of the people are actually just Republicans.

Even though I do not agree with you on a lot of these issues, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you spent to tell me your side of it. This was very thought provoking. Now back to HB910!

[TexasJohnBoy]

Mr. Cotton, since you are online, do you have anything new to share with us regarding HB910, SB11 & SB17 ??
Thanks in advance!

Two questions there: 1) is there anything new; and 2) can I share it. Yes, no.

Sorry,
Chas.

I understand sir! Hoping it is good news.

It's very good, if everything goes as planned.

Chas.

I withdraw this statement.

Chas.

Noooooooo
I still have my hopes up for some movement on Campus and Open Carry. We (card carrying background checked law abiding citizens) deserve the right to both.

[jmra]

Mr. Cotton, since you are online, do you have anything new to share with us regarding HB910, SB11 & SB17 ??
Thanks in advance!

Two questions there: 1) is there anything new; and 2) can I share it. Yes, no.

Sorry,
Chas.

I understand sir! Hoping it is good news.

It's very good, if everything goes as planned.

Chas.

I withdraw this statement.

Chas.

I guess everything did not go as planned? Was hoping things were looking up.

[Srnewby]

Hoping the news is better when I return to the forum following a 10 day "internet free" vacation.

[JP171]

I hate to say it but my opinion is that open carry of any type and campus carry along with changes to 30.06 and changing off limits bills are all dead, try again in 2 years, maybe strauss will retire due to health reasons or get run over by a tank during jade helm

[Charles L. Cotton]

I should know more by Friday.

Chas.

[bones281]

I hate to say it but my opinion is that open carry of any type and campus carry along with changes to 30.06 and changing off limits bills are all dead, try again in 2 years, maybe strauss will retire due to health reasons or get run over by a tank during jade helm

I'd have to agree with you on this JP171. I guess I'll see everyone in two years.

[Beiruty]

The Ping Pong with the expectations is not encouraging. It would either pass or not. If it fails, I would say it is a failure for all of us Pro 2nA and we have really to kick out some of the legis who are derailing our bills.

[Beiruty]

We need to force a vote, and anyone who votes no would be on record.

[nightmare69]

I should know more by Friday.

Chas.

Thanks for the update, I'll continue being hopeful.