User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 3:37:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both are out of shear necessity because of the situation that Dems and Repubs have placed us in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not hardly! I can't speak for other Libertarians but as for myself and friends who are Libertarian we want: No more president= tyrant= kings. The Federal Government control to be handed back to the states. States rights that the people vote on and control! The Federal Government put in control of the military safety of sovereignty of US and nothing more. Flat tax. Fair tax. Drill our own damn oil and get out of the Middle East. Manufacture products here. Possibly change labor laws if children under 16 desire assembly work here and tarrif Chinese imports. The US out of saving the rest of the world. Save ourselves first, our education, our economy and self sufficeincy. Immigration enforcement and border protection. Legalized weed along with everything else - no prohibition across the board similar to Amsterdam as long as you can afford it. NO WELFARE or food stamps for those partaking of substances. The Federal Reserve dumped and Gold, precious metals, or such backing readopted. Surplus ammo and guns, gun kits, to be available as they were before, less restricitons on gun rights. More prosecution for convicted criminals and death penalty cases to have fewer appeals and sentences acted on within 5 years. Governments and States accountable for their debts and budgets, and must meet them and have plans to pay back what is now owed in timely fashion. Freedom to move into or out of whichever state you more closely associate with when all hell breaks loose because California and New York, etc are broke. That's just a few sample ideas we discuss in our idealistic ramblings. The parts I highlighted red are in direct conflict with your party platform. Both are out of shear necessity because of the situation that Dems and Repubs have placed us in. So open borders are good exactly when? Oh and when is okay to practice protectionism and how if a libertarian had been running things would you have stopped it from happening? What, by not practicing what you preach? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 3:42:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. Are you referring to the United States Constitution or some other one? Ninth Amendment (1791)
The Bill of Rights does not list every right that the people have. During the ratification debate, many called for a bill of rights to be added to the document. Federalists, who supported the Constitution as written, worried that a listing of certain rights would lead people to think that other rights were less important. The Ninth Amendment was added to try to prevent this misconception. The Ninth Amendment implicitly refers to natural rights, which the Founders believed all people were born with as the gift of God or nature. And those rights include everything that doesn't break your neighbor's leg or pick his pocket. So your strawman "rights" aren't rights at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:20:40 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would you expect a bunch of leftists to vote for Republicans? I use to argue against this description but I have found them (even the so called real libertarians here) to be laughably naive, and all too often ready to rejoice when the Federal government tramples state power in the name of their pet issues. Sorry, I am not too impressed with libertarians. That is sad because they are definitely right on some issues. I cannot believe that came from you. Wow! Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. Ummmmmm.....no. Just no. You really don't get it, do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:34:17 AM EDT
[#4]
The system is corrupt, let's slow the downward slide and get Republicans in there!
 If it's even possible for a candidate at the national level to get to that point without being corrupted by the system it's impossible for them to operate at the national level and get anything done without deal making and trading votes with others of their kind when they get in. And then there's needing to keep the big money special interests satisfied so they can keep their re-election coffers well supplied.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:38:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....................... Ummmmmm.....no. Just no. You really don't get it, do you? Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:51:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
....................... Ummmmmm.....no. Just no. You really don't get it, do you? Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) I do not live in a swing state, I vote libertarian no matter what. If I lived in a swing state I might vote for the GOP ticket in situation one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:56:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You you need a course in reality. Like the Health Care Law? Why don't you look up just how many Republicans voted yes on that... Quoted:
Democrats tell people that voting third party is a vote for Republicans. Republicans tell people that voting third party is a vote for Democrats. Two sides of the same coin. Don't forget that every single law in this country was passed by both Democrats and Republicans working together. There was one Republican vote for ObamaCare. In fact, it was the only vote which really counted. It was cast by CJ Roberts ... LOL, no. 
I know that it isn't polite to laugh at people who suffer from delusion but I can't help it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:59:22 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not even a nice try. Specter started as a democrat and barely had any republican views all through his career as a republican. He was a democrat when he voted to cut off debate, nice try. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.................. There was one Republican vote for ObamaCare. In fact, it was the only vote which really counted. It was cast by CJ Roberts ... Are you indirectly saying that if Obamacare passing in Congress required one Republican vote than they would have got that vote? I remind you that the 60th vote to cut off debate on the bill was cast by Senator Arlen Spector. Not too long before he cast that vote, he was a Republican. Not even a nice try. Specter started as a democrat and barely had any republican views all through his career as a republican. He was a democrat when he voted to cut off debate, nice try.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:01:27 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
....................... Ummmmmm.....no. Just no. You really don't get it, do you? Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) Paul or Johnson. Not Cruz, Clinton or Christie |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:03:55 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean no republican period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. I remind you that the 60th vote to cut off debate on the bill was cast by Senator Arlen Spector. Not too long before he cast that vote, he was a Republican. I thought that was another Republican.........either Senator Snow or Senator Collins? No. Snowe voted to move the bill out of committee. Neither woman (and no other Republican Senator) voted to cut off debate. You mean no republican period.
In your world no Republican voted to move the bill out of committee. In the real world Senator Snowe did so. In the world the rest of us inhabit she was nominated by the Republican Party. In the real world that fact makes her a Republican. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:06:20 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ In your world no Republican voted to move the bill out of committee. In the real world Senator Snowe did so. In the world the rest of us inhabit she was nominated by the Republican Party. In the real world that fact makes her a Republican. True but the VAST majority of Republicans did not and do not support Obamacare. It was a law driven almost exclusively by democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:11:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know that it isn't polite to laugh at people who suffer from delusion but I can't help it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You you need a course in reality. Like the Health Care Law? Why don't you look up just how many Republicans voted yes on that... Quoted:
Democrats tell people that voting third party is a vote for Republicans. Republicans tell people that voting third party is a vote for Democrats. Two sides of the same coin. Don't forget that every single law in this country was passed by both Democrats and Republicans working together. There was one Republican vote for ObamaCare. In fact, it was the only vote which really counted. It was cast by CJ Roberts ... LOL, no.
I know that it isn't polite to laugh at people who suffer from delusion but I can't help it. Lol. You know that statement to be false; Obamacare was "passed" solely by the Democratic Party. Those goal posts; just keep moving them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:15:46 AM EDT
[#13]
I agree with everything OP said.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:23:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
....................... Ummmmmm.....no. Just no. You really don't get it, do you? Can I ask you a couple of questions? 1 - Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Paul or Cruz.) 2 - Krispy Crème Christie is on the GOP ticket, Hillary Clanton on the Democrat ticket and Gary Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket. Who do you vote for? (I vote for Johnson.) Agreed in both instances. Going back to my restaurant analogy, I understand that the likelihood of me getting a perfectly cooked filet mignon at this juncture is next door to impossible. I would settle for a nice porterhouse or ribeye (Rand or Cruz). Christie is akin to a surf & turf of pink slime McDonald's hamburger paired with fish sticks. And I damn sure won't go to the seafood restaurant either. I have no problem voting for a fiscally conservative Republican that may not agree with every viewpoint I have. My ideal is a fiscally conservative candidate that won't use force of law to impose his social beliefs on others. Absent that, I'll pick the fiscal conservative that expresses a desire to protect my Constitutional rights. If such a candidate doesn't exist, I'm voting Libertarian. I don't really care what letter is next to someone's name. I have three basic qualifiers: are they fiscally conservative? Will they defend my Constitutional rights? Do they seek to impose their social beliefs on others through force of law? 99.99% of Dems fail the first one. 98% of Dems fail the second one. 60-70% of Repubs fail the first and second. That third one is tricky, because both sides tend to want to use force of law to impose their own social beliefs on others. Repubs want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and continue the WoD. Dems want to use tax money to pay for abortions, force private entities to take part in gay marriage, but scale back the WoD. Repubs oppose further firearms regulation mostly, though they support the NFA and Hughes, as well as some AWBs. Dems want to gut and/or abolish the 2nd amendment. Neither party is particularly supportive of the notion of states' rights. And that is where the Libertarian party tends to shine. Quite simply, they support states' rights, limited government, and individual freedoms in addition to being fiscally conservative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:27:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ Agreed in both instances. Going back to my restaurant analogy, I understand that the likelihood of me getting a perfectly cooked filet mignon at this juncture is next door to impossible. I would settle for a nice porterhouse or ribeye (Rand or Cruz). Christie is akin to a surf & turf of pink slime McDonald's hamburger paired with fish sticks. And I damn sure won't go to the seafood restaurant either. I have no problem voting for a fiscally conservative Republican that may not agree with every viewpoint I have. My ideal is a fiscally conservative candidate that won't use force of law to impose his social beliefs on others. Absent that, I'll pick the fiscal conservative that expresses a desire to protect my Constitutional rights. If such a candidate doesn't exist, I'm voting Libertarian. I don't really care what letter is next to someone's name. I have three basic qualifiers: are they fiscally conservative? Will they defend my Constitutional rights? Do they seek to impose their social beliefs on others through force of law? 99.99% of Dems fail the first one. 98% of Dems fail the second one. 60-70% of Repubs fail the first and second. That third one is tricky, because both sides tend to want to use force of law to impose their own social beliefs on others. Repubs want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and continue the WoD. Dems want to use tax money to pay for abortions, force private entities to take part in gay marriage, but scale back the WoD. Repubs oppose further firearms regulation mostly, though they support the NFA and Hughes, as well as some AWBs. Dems want to gut and/or abolish the 2nd amendment. Neither party is particularly supportive of the notion of states' rights. And that is where the Libertarian party tends to shine. Quite simply, they support states' rights, limited government, and individual freedoms in addition to being fiscally conservative. I think someday...........I might be long gone...........the Libertarians might get a few people into higher level offices. It is a long way off though. It will have to be the younger people who change this IMHO. I don't mind Libertarians for the most part because I am somewhat of a one issue voter and Libertarians are pro gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:21:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils? A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Agreed 100%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:07:12 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed 100%. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils? A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Agreed 100%. Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:21:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you saying there were no primary elections? I doubt that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The R candidate running for Congress in my district, who was shoved down our throats by the state GOP leaders, can't even get the support of her former Military colleagues, can't think of any reason why I should vote for her. So, you saying there were no primary elections? I doubt that. I think we both can agree that money is the life blood of politics. The person with the most to spend usually wins. This allows large political groups like the RNC or a state GOP to heavily influence who will be the R nominee. The AZ GOP through a large amount of money behind a candidate that had large amounts of political baggage and who has alienated many in the community. With out the money she would have likely lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:23:38 AM EDT
[#19]
11 pages later all the Arf libertarians aren't convinced to vote R.
And if you spent all your effort and time convincing every single L vote from 2012 to vote R instead.....Obama would still be in office. Is there anything worse than wasted, futile effort? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:31:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So open borders are good exactly when? Oh and when is okay to practice protectionism and how if a libertarian had been running things would you have stopped it from happening? What, by not practicing what you preach? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not hardly! I can't speak for other Libertarians but as for myself and friends who are Libertarian we want: No more president= tyrant= kings. The Federal Government control to be handed back to the states. States rights that the people vote on and control! The Federal Government put in control of the military safety of sovereignty of US and nothing more. Flat tax. Fair tax. Drill our own damn oil and get out of the Middle East. Manufacture products here. Possibly change labor laws if children under 16 desire assembly work here and tarrif Chinese imports. The US out of saving the rest of the world. Save ourselves first, our education, our economy and self sufficeincy. Immigration enforcement and border protection. Legalized weed along with everything else - no prohibition across the board similar to Amsterdam as long as you can afford it. NO WELFARE or food stamps for those partaking of substances. The Federal Reserve dumped and Gold, precious metals, or such backing readopted. Surplus ammo and guns, gun kits, to be available as they were before, less restricitons on gun rights. More prosecution for convicted criminals and death penalty cases to have fewer appeals and sentences acted on within 5 years. Governments and States accountable for their debts and budgets, and must meet them and have plans to pay back what is now owed in timely fashion. Freedom to move into or out of whichever state you more closely associate with when all hell breaks loose because California and New York, etc are broke. That's just a few sample ideas we discuss in our idealistic ramblings. The parts I highlighted red are in direct conflict with your party platform. Both are out of shear necessity because of the situation that Dems and Repubs have placed us in. So open borders are good exactly when? Oh and when is okay to practice protectionism and how if a libertarian had been running things would you have stopped it from happening? What, by not practicing what you preach? If there were no social programs where the government redistributed money, do you think we would have a huge problem with illegal immigration? I doubt it, we would probably still have some illegals, but they would be the ones who came here solely to work, which would actually help our economy. If you are going to try to reference drugs or terrorism, be sure to tell me how our Federal Government has made a positive difference. Both parties throw money at the problem, but it never seems to do anything but get worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:42:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know that statement to be false; Obamacare was "passed" solely by the Democratic Party. I'll try to make this simple as you don't seem to grasp some important concepts: ObamaCare, like all controversial laws, had to be passed twice before it actually became effective. The first time it had to pass Congress. The second time it had to pass the United States Supreme Court. The justices all cast votes to determine the outcome of the case. Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote in favor of ObamaCare. I hope that's not too complex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:51:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a law driven almost exclusively by democrats. It was driven by powerful interests. Do you know the party affiliation of the people who run the majority of the hospitals in the US? Do you know the party affiliation of the people who run the majority of the drug companies in the US? Do you know the party affiliation of the people who run the large health insurance companies in the US? For that matter do you know the party affiliation of the people who run the other large corporations which publicly supported the law? Or the party affiliation of the people who run the large foundations which supported the law? You are focusing solely politicians alone and their political affiliations. They don't have anywhere near the power you ascribe to them. They don't drive the agenda alone. They have to cooperate with the people who control the money - assuming they wish to get enough contributions to finance a re-election campaign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:59:16 AM EDT
[#23]
I can certainly see the point of casting a straight party Republican ballot this fall, we need a Congress that will block Obama as much as possible. But for '16 the RNC needs to know that it needs a decent candidate or it's gonna be Hilldawg.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:04:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with everything OP said. Thanks bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:17:36 AM EDT
[#25]
How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils?
A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. That's just a vote for the lesser of three evils. It's also a vote for another socialist Supreme Court justice when the Dem gets elected. Libertarians should run as Republicans, utilizing the Republican Party resources and infrastructure, and quit splitting the Republican vote. Ron Paul did this. This would be similar to the way te socialists infiltrated the Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:19:30 AM EDT
[#26]
I'll happily vote Republican as long as they aren't big-government liberals pretending to be conservatives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:22:13 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've made the assumption that I'm not a Libertarian myself. I look forward to the day that I CAN freely vote for a Libertarian candidate of my choice, but for the time being, their (our) reputation isn't proven yet on any level. At this point, anything "promised" by some great Libertarian minds is simply lip service. There's no track record to run on yet. They (we) need to start fixing local communities on a municipal and city level and then aim for state-level positions. Until that happens, you're going to end up with a powerful amount of votes that could make or break our country going in vain to a third party. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Never voted for a libertarian candidate before, but why do you, and so many republicans think they're entitled to the votes of libertarians? If the libertarians were republicans, they would be republicans, they are libertarians for a reason, they do not agree with the policies of the republican party, what makes you think you can tell people to vote for something they disagree with? I don't understand the sense of entitlement republicans have about libertarian votes... You've made the assumption that I'm not a Libertarian myself. I look forward to the day that I CAN freely vote for a Libertarian candidate of my choice, but for the time being, their (our) reputation isn't proven yet on any level. At this point, anything "promised" by some great Libertarian minds is simply lip service. There's no track record to run on yet. They (we) need to start fixing local communities on a municipal and city level and then aim for state-level positions. Until that happens, you're going to end up with a powerful amount of votes that could make or break our country going in vain to a third party. It will never be "safe" to vote Libertarian if you blindly vote for Republicans every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:23:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Fuck it. I'll vote Democrat. Let's go ahead and get this shit over with.
"Libertarians are an irrelevant party" .... "We lost the election due to Libertarians."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:25:46 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While a genuinely noble position to hold, one which I like to think I share, it's a pipe dream at this point. I guess I have a different view of how this could be accomplished. My view disallows Democrats from creating any more carnage to ultimately undo. I know, I know. Republicans leave their own carnage in their wake, but I suppose I think of them from a glass half full, lesser of two evils perspective. I like to think that inserting Tea Party Republicans in important seats would help offset the imbalance we currently have. That's my only intent with starting this whole thread. I'd love to see many of the Libertarian ideals grasped by the majority of voting Americans, but I see that being in the distant future. Perhaps I'm wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a libertarian myself, I'm going to go with a big fucking 'NO' on that one. I stopped playing that "lesser-of-two-evils" bullshit a long time ago. I'm voting only for the candidates with whom I see represent my sides of the issues. I don't give a shit if it means the left will come into power. It's the same fucking people that will get into office and will stay there til they decide they've made a nice comfortable enough living to live of the taxpayer-funded pension that they gave themselves! Fuck that! Right now, the way I see it, nothing less than a revolution will pull us out of this downward spiral maelstrom shit storm and balance will be restored. Until then, there is no fucking way on earth that I will consent by silence or condone by vote the stupid ass decisions of the people who either have no clue WTF they are doing or are out to achieve some selfish agenda. So unless I hear a candidate on a ballot say: "The govt is stifling our very way of life, we should cut back on everything across the board by 80% and go back to fulfilling our original purpose. We will accomplish this by getting rid of the Federal income tax and dismantle the Federal Reserve." They will not get my vote. Since there is a greater chance of a second American revolution than anyone saying that, I'll wait for the second shot that rang around the world. You can sign your own liberty away if you so chose, but I wont surrender it voluntarily.  While a genuinely noble position to hold, one which I like to think I share, it's a pipe dream at this point. I guess I have a different view of how this could be accomplished. My view disallows Democrats from creating any more carnage to ultimately undo. I know, I know. Republicans leave their own carnage in their wake, but I suppose I think of them from a glass half full, lesser of two evils perspective. I like to think that inserting Tea Party Republicans in important seats would help offset the imbalance we currently have. That's my only intent with starting this whole thread. I'd love to see many of the Libertarian ideals grasped by the majority of voting Americans, but I see that being in the distant future. Perhaps I'm wrong. A) I firmly believe the 'lesser-of-two evils' approach is what killed our liberty. That slippery slope of compromise in the name of morality is what led us to this point. B) Tea Partiers are not Republicans. Even Republicans do see them as Republicans as they demonstrated SO CLEARLY in that last MS primary. You are blind if you haven't already figured that out.... Still, no vote from me unless I hear it, even if it means withholding my vote every election. Besides, it wouldn't matter. I live in Chicago anyway. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:32:09 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, a 13'er that gets it. And he SHE carries a Glock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a libertarian myself, I'm going to go with a big fucking 'NO' on that one. I stopped playing that "lesser-of-two-evils" bullshit a long time ago. I'm voting only for the candidates with whom I see represent my sides of the issues. I don't give a shit if it means the left will come into power. It's the same fucking people that will get into office and will stay there til they decide they've made a nice comfortable enough living to live of the taxpayer-funded pension that they gave themselves! Fuck that! Right now, the way I see it, nothing less than a revolution will pull us out of this downward spiral maelstrom shit storm and balance will be restored. Until then, there is no fucking way on earth that I will consent by silence or condone by vote the stupid ass decisions of the people who either have no clue WTF they are doing or are out to achieve some selfish agenda. So unless I hear a candidate on a ballot say: "The govt is stifling our very way of life, we should cut back on everything across the board by 80% and go back to fulfilling our original purpose. We will accomplish this by getting rid of the Federal income tax and dismantle the Federal Reserve." They will not get my vote. Since there is a greater chance of a second American revolution than anyone saying that, I'll wait for the second shot that rang around the world. You can sign your own liberty away if you so chose, but I wont surrender it voluntarily. Damn, a 13'er that gets it. And he SHE carries a Glock. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:38:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly, you wouldn't know the difference. You're not really a conservative. You've just adopted the name. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: See, even poor gabby realizes you guys are nothing but liberals in conservative clothing! Honestly, you wouldn't know the difference. You're not really a conservative. You've just adopted the name. Eggzackery. Whom, precisely, do you members of the Porcupine Wing of the Republican Party think you attract with such hyperbolic retreats into your own delusional retardville? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:40:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why would you expect a bunch of leftists to vote for Republicans? I use to argue against this description but I have found them (even the so called real libertarians here) to be laughably naive, and all too often ready to rejoice when the Federal government tramples state power in the name of their pet issues. Sorry, I am not too impressed with libertarians. That is sad because they are definitely right on some issues. I cannot believe that came from you. Wow! Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:42:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
their vote, thier rules. They say they can't support the republicans, which are way to similar to democrats. Sadly, not support R means not opposing D. I wish it were, but it just isnt. His post, his spelling. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:45:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, Amash is the rule not the exception. Conservative right, NRA A rated fiscal conservative, pro life traditional marriage, votes against Obama and Reid 78% of the time. "EVIL!!!!" lol http://i.imgur.com/a80hx5P.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ahh, voting for the lesser of two evils. Either way you still end up with evil.  Yep, what difference does it make. If I even vote, it will be third party across the board. Well actually we have a libertarian congressman who is a republican so that's one republican who I'd vote for. Justin Amash? He's my parents' congressman and he's definitely worthy. He's probably the best person in the House right now. Too bad that he's the exception and not the rule. Actually, Amash is the rule not the exception. Conservative right, NRA A rated fiscal conservative, pro life traditional marriage, votes against Obama and Reid 78% of the time. "EVIL!!!!" lol http://i.imgur.com/a80hx5P.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:47:13 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils? A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Agreed 100%. Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections. I don't disagree. I love my country though, and will do my part to help do what's best for it. Republicans aren't perfect, but they are better for the country than the democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:54:04 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can certainly see the point of casting a straight party Republican ballot this fall, we need a Congress that will block Obama as much as possible. But for '16 the RNC needs to know that it needs a decent candidate or it's gonna be Hilldawg. The willingness to vote straight GOP no matter what is why we keep getting shit candidates like Romney. Without consequences, there will be no change in behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:54:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's where you and your fellow travelers have always been. It's refreshing to see you admit your true goals finally. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's all just vote D and watch this mother burn It's where you and your fellow travelers have always been. It's refreshing to see you admit your true goals finally. Instead of trying to draw us back in using logic or heaven forbid some charm or warmth, look how you behave. Then, you whine when we turn our backs on your type of Republican. I'm sick of such whiny, FSA-style feelings of entitlement. Earn our votes, or stop complaining when you don't get them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:55:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you referring to the United States Constitution or some other one? And those rights include everything that doesn't break your neighbor's leg or pick his pocket. So your strawman "rights" aren't rights at all. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes, because some of the libertarians here have gone off the rails. One even talking of human rights. They often make emotional arguments with no context and absent legal framework....one going on about do you favor the expansion of rights or not...if not you are my enemy blah blah. Given this rather emotional position, why should I not assume they also favor the right to free or affordable housing, the right to free or affordable health care, the right to an minimum income, etc etc. Hey it is a right because I said so right? The Left uses the same logic or lack there of. But hey, I am just a statist for believing in the Constitution. Are you referring to the United States Constitution or some other one? Ninth Amendment (1791) The Bill of Rights does not list every right that the people have. During the ratification debate, many called for a bill of rights to be added to the document. Federalists, who supported the Constitution as written, worried that a listing of certain rights would lead people to think that other rights were less important. The Ninth Amendment was added to try to prevent this misconception. The Ninth Amendment implicitly refers to natural rights, which the Founders believed all people were born with as the gift of God or nature. And those rights include everything that doesn't break your neighbor's leg or pick his pocket. So your strawman "rights" aren't rights at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 11:56:21 AM EDT
[#39]
I just switched from L to R so I could vote in my primaries that actually matter. We need all the R's we can get in the People's Republic of Maryland.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:00:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils? A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Agreed 100%. Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:06:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The willingness to vote straight GOP no matter what is why we keep getting shit candidates like Romney. Without consequences, there will be no change in behavior. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can certainly see the point of casting a straight party Republican ballot this fall, we need a Congress that will block Obama as much as possible. But for '16 the RNC needs to know that it needs a decent candidate or it's gonna be Hilldawg. The willingness to vote straight GOP no matter what is why we keep getting shit candidates like Romney. Without consequences, there will be no change in behavior. Timing is everything. I'm not sure our country could survive 8 more years of democratic control. Otherwise, I agree with your post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:13:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree. I love my country though, and will do my part to help do what's best for it. Republicans aren't perfect, but they some are better for the country than the democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about we vote for who we think is the best individual candidate instead of the lesser of two evils? A vote for the lesser of two evils is not a vote for good, but still a vote for evil. I'll vote for who I feel best represents me in the primary, if my guy loses I will put on my big boy pants, not throw a hissy fit, and vote for the guy who can beat the democrats who are sinking this great country. This is what real men in this country have always done. Only children think their vote is somehow an extension of their political expression and they are somehow teaching someone a lesson. I will do what is best for my country, not cry and pout. Agreed 100%. Protip: Repubs have done plenty to fuck up this country, including instituting some of the mechanisms the Dems are now utilizing for their own purposes. If someone's sole argument in their favor is that they are not someone else, they have done nothing to earn my vote, nor will they receive it. The ridiculous notion that only Democrats can or will destroy this nation is a child's wish to have easily identified "bad guys" and "good guys". Reality is far more nuanced, and grown ups realize that the "good guys" can be sabotaged from within by their own people. Virtue is not conferred by a letter or a color, but rather by the principles one espouses and supports. If a candidate wants votes, he should run based on who he is, rather than who he is not. Earn them. Republicans have lost not because Libertarians stole their votes, but because they never even earned those votes in the first place, as evidenced by the massive number of Republicans that have just sat out the last few elections. I don't disagree. I love my country though, and will do my part to help do what's best for it. Republicans aren't perfect, but they some are better for the country than the democrats. With only a slight edit, I agree with you here. Some Republicans are better for this nation. Some are Republicans in name only. A hyena can call itself a zebra all it wants to, but at the end of the day it will happily feast on the flesh of the true zebras and laugh all the way home. Those that call themselves conservatives but then utterly fail to uphold tenets of liberty upon which this nation was founded are harming this country right along with Dems, all the while telling conservatives that they are the only hope for conservative salvation. Any victory of theirs is a hollow, empty thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:13:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Libertarians are an irrelevant party" .... "We lost the election due to Libertarians." Relevant enough to help Republicans lose elections, not relevant enough to turn the entire Republican party libertarian. It's not that difficult.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:21:40 PM EDT
[#44]
James, you are Christian, I believe, right?
Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:39:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
James, you are Christian, I believe, right? Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 12:48:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
James, you are Christian, I believe, right? Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:07:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
James, you are Christian, I believe, right? Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? Yeah. That Patriot Act was pretty spiffy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:10:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
James, you are Christian, I believe, right? Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? The most important thing we need right now is world respect/fear, and security. After that I would like a president that will downsize government. They won't though, government will never shrink. Once you give them power you will never get it back without force. The republicans are pandering to the left. I wish they would just stand firm with conservative values/morals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:13:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. That Patriot Act was pretty spiffy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
James, you are Christian, I believe, right? Let me ask you a question, then. Was Judas better for Jesus than the Romans? Forgetting for a moment that Jesus was supposed to die for the sons of the people, which is not really the point of the question. Is a betrayer of his people any better for his people than their enemies? I get what you are saying, but I believe the Republican Party is not intentionally harming us. I believe they are moving towards the center to try to attract undecided voters (kind of like what the libertarians are asking for). He was far from perfect, but we need a GWB right now. GWB massively expanded the government. Is that what we need? And if Republicans aren't intentionally ruining our shit, why do some still talk like conservatives even as they're acting like liberals? Yeah. That Patriot Act was pretty spiffy. No, it isn't. No need to be cute, or sarcastic. We were having a nice conversation. I said GWB wasn't perfect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:13:50 PM EDT
[#50]
You're barking up the wrong tree, OP.
Fucktards around here will tell you that it's all about "sending a message", while the other side (who doesn't allow third-party left-wingers in national elections) systematically takes over the government. Republicans are stupid, yes...but to split the vote is infinitely more stupid.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
