East_TN_Patriot

Exactly.

I'm not sure what to think that seven people voted they would plow through a crowd of protesters as the first option. My first thought is that there are some violent evil people who have no respect for the law, decency, or human life. My next thought is that these same people who are tough guys behind the safety of their keyboard would really probably crawl into the floorboard of their car crying until the police showed up. As for me, I would stop, assess, stand my ground if necessary, retreat if possible, and plow through them only as an absolute last resort to save my life or the lives of my family if they were with me.

Perhaps I don't really understand what your question is exactly, but I think many of us have tried to speak to the issue of using the vote to implement change. As far as your point about the Libertarians, you're arguement is spurious. The reason they aren't more successful is because so many are so brainwashed by the rhetoric of the two party system, they would rather support a party and the candidates they put forward even if they don't agree with them. As I said before, if even a small portion of the people who are fed up would put their money where their mouth is and vote third party, things would change in a hurry. Frankly all of this revolution talk people throw forward is ignorant and lacking in imagination or dedication. Essentially people are saying the election process is broken, but they won't try to use it to further change. Basically, people are calling for revolution but don't have the gonads to try to fix things through the ballot box. To be completely honest, I think the real issue is not about liberty versus tyranny. Rather, it's about people being upset that they don't have a government that governs exactly as they would like it to, which includes passing laws to punish people they don't agree with, hence where the Tea Party comes into the picture, but I digress. I'll stick with the Libertarians, the party that wants to take over the world and leave you alone.

It is far fetched because the only candidates in the 2 party system (2PS) who even have a shot at winning are the ones who get the blessing of the state and/or national party. Without that support, the candidate is far less likely to get the campaign funds, endorsements, and logistical support needed to win. Add in the reality that these parties will actually work against people running under their party label whom the party does not like. When you vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate, you are almost always voting for one that has been vetted, bought, and paid for by the party. Since the Republicans (I'm going to presume that's the party most everyone on TGO supports as I did for my entire adult life until 4 years ago) are putting up candidates election cycle after election cycle that we don't like, that should tell you something. The Republican Party is like an old building. Sometimes it's just not worth trying to fix, but it's better to moves and build a better building. I'm arguing that the Libertarian Party is that building. The ballot box won't make any difference if people keep supporting the same 2 party system. The political parties are like any other entrenched social entity, whether it be political, governmental, or private. Once they exist, they will do what is necessary to maintain the status quo and preserve or expand their power and influence. Social institutions only change to survive. Until people bite the bullet and shift their money and support elsewhere, the 2PS is only going to change enough to keep people from leaving, dupe people into believing that their interests are being represented, or keep their political efficacy low so they don't vote at all and leave the policy-making process to favored individuals and groups. First, your premise that the Libertarian Party would only draw from the Republicans is false. Due to the Party's more liberal stance on social issues, it attracts many from the Democratic Party, particularly the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs. This is why you don't see or hear of the Dems pushing the Libertarians in any way. They know that the LP is a threat to them as well. You're buying into the fear mongering of the Reps. If the Democrats were really pushing a "divide and conquer" tactic, the Dems would be funneling money to the LP, trying to subversively drive Reps to the LP, they would be talking them up in a way that made them look attractive to Reps, etc. None of this is happening. Instead, Dems say the same kinds of things people here do about third parties. The Dems also know there is tremendous discord in their own party and they don't want to risk making third parties seem viable. If you really, I mean genuinely, want to see political change, then the third party is the only way to do it. Tell me how this plan of weeding people out is going to work (see also my points above). Tell me why the Republican Revolution under Newt didn't change anything, or why the Tea Party has been generally a failure. The two parties are going to resist weeding out those elected officials or actively try to destroy those innovators who do get into office. If a significant portion of those who are fed up with the system we have now would stop drinking the two party Kool aid and vote for a third party, especially the same third party, the two parties would have to adapt or fall apart. This is why the Tea Party was able to shake things up as they did in the beginning. Their failure was partially due to their stance on using the power of government for controlling social morality (a direct contradiction to the ideology of a free society with smaller government) and their connection to the Republican Party (see again my earlier points on this). Of all people, Republicans should know that the Party came into existence over a split within the Whig Party over similar issues and was able to get Lincoln in the White House in less than a decade.

I keep reading how everyone is pissed off at the Republicans and the Democrats, some sort of revolutionary change is needed, but nobody wants to start that revolution as the founders of this democratic republic intended, which is through the ballot box. We all know the two major parties aren't looking out for our interests nor are they going to change, but when it comes to Election Day, virtually everyone runs to the polls and votes for one of the two major parties anyhow. When anyone suggests a third party, like the Libertarian Party, nobody will vote because "they can't win." Well no frigging wonder. The overwhelming majority of Americans have voluntarily enslaved themselves to the two major parties, which is exactly where they want you. I'm a believer in the old saying, we get the government we deserve and anyone who votes for any Republican Party or Democratic Party member is getting the tyranny they deserve. Then there is the Tea Party, which is a bunch of establishment Republicans who know how to talk a good game and dupe people into voting for them. Even the caucus' former leader Michelle Bachman made it very clear that the Tea Party Caucus was nothing more than a "repository for ideas" and that the opinions of constituents was basically meaningless. Keep drinking the two-party Kool Aid folks. That's what they are scaring you and paying you off with government benefits to do.

That's why I was asking.  We have a few drive-by revolutionaries on this forum now and again and I didn't want to miss an opportunity to flame them a bit.  :stir:

Are you suggesting this is a good thing?  

This is going to be my last post anywhere (the blog, Facebook, or TGO) about this case.  Trayvon Martin is dead because Trayvon Martin decided to unlawfully attack George Zimmerman.  Whether GZ's assumptions were accurate, whether he is a racist, whether he followed TM after the police told him to stop, or whether GZ could have used other means to end the assault, the single fatal gunshot was in response to a proactive attack made by Trayvon Martin.  He could have run away or gotten off the phone with his girlfriend and called the police, but instead, he decided to attack GZ.   There are a lot of gun owners, including some on TGO, that need to think long and hard about this case because their words suggest they are quite willing to fire off a gunshot at the mere hint of aggressive behavior and/or take full advantage of the "stand your ground" provision of the law if given the chance.  As this case shows, one can easily find themselves sitting in the defendant's chair or dead because of they let their ego get in the way of prudent and wise decision-making.  

I would suggest a Spike's Tactical ST Compresser in 300BLK with a single point sling.  Might be a little bulky for casual everyday wear, but it would definitely make a fashion statement.

Now you should sell them all and use the money to buy a 1911.  :stir:

He's going to Disney World.

I agree with this, but I don't agree that GZ was "looking for trouble". Instead, he was being proactive at combatting crime in his own gated community, one which had been hit with several burglaries including one where a woman was assaulted.  He called the police and followed the person whom he thought was suspicious in order to maintain sight of him until police arrived.  How, exactly, is that "looking for trouble"?  Does that same idea apply to the armed citizen who goes through his home to confront an intruder?  Does that same concept apply to one who goes outside of his/her home to investigate a suspicious noise?  He was observing and reporting like we are all told to do by law enforcement.  His firearm did not come into the scenario until the very end when he used it to end a violent confrontation started by TM that left GZ with a serious broken nose and other injuries.    Again, there is about a minute gap from the time that GZ was told not to follow TM and the shooting occurred.  GZ told the dispatcher he would meet with officers next to his truck, thus suggesting he did disengage and began to walk back to his car.  That he didn't run back to his truck fast enough to satisfy you is not relevant.

I find it interesting that people want to convict GZ for wrongdoing because he originally followed TM while talking to the 911 dispatcher even though he stopped following him after being told to do so and told the dispatcher that he would meet the police next to his truck, but these same people don't place any blame on TM who did not call the police even though he had a cell phone in his hand and didn't continue to run to the home where he was staying upon seeing a "creepy ass cracker" following him.  Instead, he approached GZ from behind as he walked back to his car, started a confrontation, and struck GZ in the face breaking his nose.  Even then, TM did not disengage, but stayed on the offensive while GZ was on the ground and started beating his head onto the concrete.  With all of that, people want to blame GZ for choosing not to stay in his truck and say that is the whole reason this happened.  TM had multiple opportunities to avoid this confrontation, but he chose to go on the offensive as a man walked away from him.  Whether GZ's original suspicion was reasonable or not, whether his effort to keep TM in view while the police responded was wise or not, neither of these are justification for being attacked from behind, or attacked at all.   If you would instantaneously go on the offensive with an aggressive physical attack just because someone is following you, then you are likely to find yourself dead or in the defendant's seat following the incident. For interested folks, here is the blog post I wrote about the verdict: The Zimmerman Verdict: Has Justice Been Served?

Either way, Zimmerman is screwed.  

I don't drink very often, but I view this question the same as I do any situation when consuming alcohol is concerned.  One or two beers does not lead to any significant level of impairment for the overwhelming majority of people in society.  Two beers in an hour is unlikely to get your BAC over a .02, which is negligible. If I intend to have a firearm readily available, I will not drink more than one or two beers.  Same as if I know I will be driving.  If I can't safely handle a firearm after a couple of adult beverages, or I am so out of control after drinking several adult beverages that I need to keep my guns hidden away, then I probably 1) don't need to own guns, and/or 2) don't need to drink. To be frank, the logic of some people in regards to this issue is strikingly similar to the logic used by the anti-gun crowd.  For those anti-gunners, some people do bad things with guns, so good people can't be trusted with guns because they might do something bad too.   For the anti-alcohol crowd the logic is: Some people are irresponsible and do stupid stuff while drinking, so we can't trust responsible people with alcohol because they might do something stupid too. 

But no citizen should be subjected to unprofessional behavior, especially since the kid wasn't being disrespectful. As I said in my blog post, this kid was guilty of nothing except contempt of cop. I get the impression that you think everyone should just shut up, allow ourselves to be subjected to random police intrusion, and smile while our rights are violated. Civil disobedience has been an effective tool for centuries and I applaud this kid for stepping up and trying to do the right thing. You are blaming the kid because the cop was a jerk, when that's the real problem here. There is a deputy driving the roads of Rutherford County who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to treat people like crap when he feels like his authority is in question, and a sheriff who seems to find that behavior acceptable as well. Never mind the fact that they also think it's acceptable to randomly stop American citizens, demand their papers, and subject them to a search without any suspicion of wrongdoing. I was a cop. I investigated countless DUI cases. This sort of activity is not necessary and has little, if anything, to do with getting drunk drivers off the road. It's PR and a chance to snoop for other crimes, especially illegal drugs.

I have had time to watch about 10 minutes of it and will be watching the remainder as soon as I have time to do so. I'll be writing a follow-up to the above blog post after I watch it, but so far I see no justification for talking to the kid like he did. I was a cop for 10 years and I know what type of behavior is appropriate in situations like that. This cop didn't meet that standard. I also don't buy for a second that they found marijuana seeds in the car. They are trying to rhetorically justify a search from a non-existent K9 hit. Unless the remaining 20 minutes of the video reveal something unexpected - and I am very open to that possibility - I will stand by my original analysis. I plan to have my response posted tomorrow (I'm stuck in Georgia visiting my in-laws today).

Of course the deputy was cleared of any wrongdoing. There have been multiple cases of police SWAT teams kicking in the wrong door and killing unarmed innocent people inside and they are cleared of any wrongdoing. The officer was a jerk and had no justification for it.

I thought some of you folks would be interested in my response to this incident.  Here is an excerpt of my blog post:   I also discuss some of the pertinent case law surrounding checkpoints and the issue related to the drug dog.  I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts. https://thescruffypulpit.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/an-independence-day-checkpoint/

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the Libertarians are an "established political party".  They have been officially in existence since 1971, they have put a candidate on the presidential ballot during every election cycle, and Gary Johnson garnered the most votes of any third party during the last election.  Considering polls of Tea Party supporters in 2010 showed that around 40 percent of the movement considered themselves libertarians, I think your understanding of what the movement is - or at least what it was - is inaccurate.   The LP reports 139 Libertarians currently hold office in various state and local offices, but only compiles the list as people submit information to the national party.   How's your Tea Party working out?  Many that were elected in 2010 are no longer in office and those that are still in office have effectively been shunned by the Republican Party or have turned into statist Republicans including the Tea Party poster child Marco Rubio (it was only a couple years ago all the Tea Partiers were begging him to run for POTUS).  None of their policy proposals have gotten any traction.  Their fringe issues, like the Obama birth certificate silliness, these absurd "citizen's grand jury" indictments, and calls for "nullification" of federal laws, and has alienated many supporters and has been blamed for Republican losses in many elections including the loss of the Republican majority in the New Hampshire state house.  Tack on the reality that Tea Party candidates are backed by the same big-money corporate interests that the populist element of the Tea Party claims to eschew, it's obvious why the movement is largely irrelevant. As I see it, the majority of Tea Party supporters in this country are simply Republicans who are bent out of shape over Obama (rightly so) and don't really have any intentions or plans to reform anything.  They just want to elect politicians who will yell loudly about how crappy Obama is whether they are qualified to hold office or have any viable policy ideas or not.  They still want to fight wars all over the globe, still want to pour tax dollars into an over-funded military, still want to pour billions of dollars into the drug war, still want to use government to dictate to people how to live, still want to use government to suppress political dissent, and still want to use government to support programs and businesses they agree with.  The Tea Party supporters who are genuinely for smaller government abandoned the movement a couple of years ago when they saw it was going to be the same old neocon BS, especially the kind we saw in the late 1980s-1990s when the Republicans were in bed with the Christian Coalition.   The Libertarian plan is to take over the world and leave you alone.   Speaking of Rubio, I'll just share this little gem: Midterms 2010: Tea Party 'Crown Prince’ Marco Rubio wins The Republicans’ Cuban-American rising star has been elected Senator for Florida, and tipped as a future US president.

So we just sit back and let the good ol' .gov take care of us?  Considering the police have no lawful obligation to protect us and are very unlikely to respond in time to do anything, I wish more people would take responsibility for the safety of their community.  Could GZ handled it differently?  Perhaps, but we don't really know what happened.  It doesn't matter what he did leading up to the actual altercation.  If his story that he was being beaten so badly that he thought his life was in danger, he has the lawful ability to use deadly force.  As long as he did not initiate the physical altercation, he did not deserve to be attacked.  Even if he did initiate the altercation, he did not deserve being beaten so badly that he felt his life was in jeopardy.  People's responses to this are not much different than blaming a rape victim for her victimization for being at a bar and wearing a tight skirt.    My personal suspicion is that GZ was a bit over-zealous, probably approached TM, they got into a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical altercation, and when TM got the upper hand and began to bash GZ's head into the concrete, GZ fired off a gunshot.  I predict that GZ will be found not-guilty.    Regardless, as I've said in other threads, this should make all these mall ninjas, armchair commandos, and wanna-be John Waynes floating around the Internet have a second thought about their belief that they can shoot anyone who gives them a cross look.

  If you think that allowing grown adults decide for themselves what substances they want to put in their own bodies as "moon-bat" then clearly there is no discussion on this point.  As a former police officer who dealt with the problems of the illegal drug trade first-hand, I am quite proud to say that I support legalization of most substances and call for a shift in drug policy from one of law enforcement to one of harm reduction that includes a focus on drug treatment.  It's also clear that you don't know much about the Libertarian Party because their philosophy has been strongly grounded in the Constitution, and not some wishy-washy interpretation of the document that gives the government powers to enforce policies we like while crushing the opposition.  Simply put, we don't pretend to believe in small government and then call for legislation to regulate every aspect of social morality that can reasonably be controlled and deny equal rights to certain segments of the American population.  If that makes me a "moon-bat" I'll wear that label very proudly.   Ya know what's funny about your "Ron Paulbots" comment is that Ron Paul was one of the original Tea Party supporters, his followers have pumped a lot of money into the Tea Party, and some have referred to Ron Paul as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.  It's no wonder others have referred to the Tea Party as being "schizophrenic".   I do not agree that inaction is inherently dangerous.  In many cases it can be quite wise and prudent.  Just look at the Patriot Act.  We were told that inaction was dangerous and see what that got us?  I understand your point, and I suspect we don't necessarily disagree.  What I have seen through my interactions with the Tea Party is that they have a very skewed interpretation of the social world and their place in it.  It's the Tea Partiers who complain about government spending, but demand that their Social Security, Medicare, and military spending aren't cut (obviously I am generalizing a bit, but I've never heard Sarah Palin call for cuts in these budget areas).   Here is an interesting article that discusses the ideological split within the Tea Party.  The majority believe the government should promote "traditional conservative values" while the remainder support the libertarian philosophy of letting responsible adults live their lives as they choose without government intrusion: http://reason.com/poll/2011/09/26/is-half-the-tea-part-libertart I am advocating the very coalition building you mention, but suggest that the Tea Party would be better served joining with an established political party that shares their values instead of affiliating with the Republicans in an effort to change them.  As far as I am concerned, until the Tea Party does away with it's insistence on using the force of government to legislate morality, I have no interest.  That said, the Libertarian Party has made an effort to do some coalition building.  See below: http://www.lp.org/issues/tea-party

I didn't know this had been discussed before, but based on many of the comments I read, people think that Corey has really been indicted.  What is unfortunate is that the guy who heads up this nonsense has a pretty impressive resume (assuming his credentials are not fabricated).  This sort of stupidity is one notch above saying "my imaginary friend says that you are a meanie" and makes conservatives look like morons.

The service at Frontier Firearms is not much better.  My wife and I had a similar experience with them three or four years ago when she ordered and paid for a handgun to give me for Christmas.  Over 4 months of lies and phone calls that were never returned, I finally received my handgun.  When we went to pick it up, I was talking to the clerk while they ran the background check, and the owner walked out of his office, butted into the conversation without so much as an excuse me or a kind word to me as a customer, griped at his clerk about some paperwork issue, and stomped back to his office.  The entire ordeal was so terrible that my wife, who is not a gun enthusiast, refused to ever purchase another firearm for me as a gift and she has held true to that statement.  It was about that time the owner of Frontier Firearms came onto TGO to bash members who order guns from sellers on the Internet (long-time TGO members will probably recall that thread).  I'll never darken their door and would grin a little bit if they went out of business.  

I saw this making the rounds on Facebook today and being the constant skeptic, I had to do some research since I had not heard anything about it through any media outlet.  Instead, what I found was that this information was being passed around in self-described conservative blogs.  As is typically the case, one blog cited another blog that cited another blog.  Finally I found a PDF file of the "indictment" posted here. This is total BS.  This was done by a "citizen's grand jury" not a legitimate court affiliated grand jury.  In other words, it's a bunch of pissed off people who got together to draft their own "indictment" against the prosecutor.  It is drawn up in a manner that is similar to a legitimate indictment, but it's not.  Incidentally this guy is referred to as the "one man Tea Party".  Well, that will win converts for sure.   Here is the document:   http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/130701-scan0244.pdf Now compare it to an actual indictment from the State of Florida: http://www.news-press.com/assets/pdf/A418875352.PDF