???? Dude. What are u even talking about? I dont think Sanders is libertarian. I do think there are some areas that he can work with libertarians in things like criminal justice reforms, gay marriage, and fed oversight.
And about the audit the fed bill. Sanders wanted it as Paul and Grayson wrote it, but had to change it to get the narrower audit or else it would not have passed. How do I know that? Because Senator Vitter offered an amendment that restored the original language. Ron Paul strongly supported it the amendment http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-06/america-deserves-an-up-or-down-vote-on-audit-the-fed/ It failed 62-37. One of those who voted in favor of restoring the language, Bernie Sanders.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00138 He wanted to do a full audit, but got all he could get passed. Ron Paul actually ended up praising Bernie Sanders: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-11/ron-paul-disappointed-but-the-fed-is-no-longer-untouchable/ So wrong again @twylyght
One of those is a cloture vote (filibuster) and those are all appropriation bills. I thought you were talking about voting on the PATRIOT Act. Not if we should stop funding and shut down our entire intelligence and homeland security apparatus lol.
No i got it. I just got lost in my own story and didnt really mention or illustrate my point properly I was agreeing with you, and just making the point that in these two instances having a gun would not have mattered. I would have lost and/or it would have ended in someone's death I wasn't trying to make the point that having a gun would never matter because it didn't matter in those cases. But situations are different. You are right. You dont really know how you will react. I could have tried to rush the guy who actually pointed the gun right at me and my friends. And if he pulled the trigger on one of us that may have happened (there were three of us standing next to each other) or we may have just scattered. It is hard to think straight in that situation. I just remember thinking (hoping) to myself that if he really wanted to shoot us he would have done so immediately. So I just said something like "You dont want to do that man" or something stupid like that and the dude talked some sh1t and ran off.
I have had two close calls with guns being pulled on me (well one wasnt really on me, but at a party where he shot it in the air cause he got pissed at some guys talking poo). Luckily both situations ended with nobody getting hurt, but both situations i felt like even if I had a gun either A) it would have made thing worse and one of us would have been dead or B) wouldnt have mattered because the guy already had the drop on me. If I tried to pull out a gun (which i didnt have one so it really didnt matter) I would have been dead anyway and I was able to talk to him and he just ran off.
There is actually quite a few of these I can agree with. 1 - I like it but others have brought up good points about how logistically this would be tough to actually do 2 - yes. 3 - yes. 4 - not 100% sure what you are talking about, but I don't like the idea of limiting a person from holding the government accountable if they feel they have been wrongfully injured. Even during the commission of a crime 5 - I like this idea.. a lot. However, doesn't that essentially create a registry? 6 - if you interpret that Washington law correctly that does seem silly, but I agree we have to have stronger laws of private transactions of guns 7 - yes.
So basically, me a radical (not really) agrees with basically 6 of your 7 ideas. See we can get something done :)
It is I believe a Walther PPK Party Leader pistol with the swastika on the handle. I am not a WWII gun (or any type of gun for that matter) expert but I am pretty sure that is what it is. My grandfather "liberated it" from a German officer in WWII. My sister actually has physical possession of the gun right now, in a safe with several other family guns (ironically my entire family is gun nuts and when one of my uncles passed away left a small arsenal of weapons, this gun was the only one I wanted because of it's historical significance) at her house so I actually don't have possession of it but it is technically mine... if she decides to give it back lol
Oh and I have a gun that is a family heirloom, but dont carry it or ever shoot it, and I dont hunt. For self defense I stay aware of my surroundings and at home have an alarm system and locks. At one time in a rougher neighborhood I just had bars on the doors and windows and an alarm system.
Only thing that can change anything is radical in nature at this point. That is why the idea of middle ground is pretty much a fruitless endeavor. That is not to say there aren't basic steps we can take like universal background checks, close gun show loopholes, and a federal registry. At least two of those ideas (more background checks and gun show loopholes) have wide bipartisan support, and should be easy to pass if Republicans arent relying on campaign contributions from the NRA and have the general welfare of our people as their primary concern. They have control of Congress so I look forward to that bill in Washington, and look forware to the expansion and increased funding of Medicaid in GOP controlled states, since Medicaid is how many of our mentally ill get the medical treatment they need. The rest of my ideas are admittedly radical and not plausible. But IMO the only way to create real change is through radical change.
First, the NRA LOVES LOVES LOVES criminals with guns. Loves it. Has no desire to stop it. Wants it. It is good for business. Give me one proposal they have put forth to prevent them from getting them. Just one. They are implicitly arming criminals, and know it. And let me clarify on drugs. Legalize marijuana. Decriminalize use of some drugs and focus on treatment and not incarceration. And continue to go after suppliers and pushers of hard drugs.