Don't Mess With Texas!
Although I never liked the football team, and I hated my time in military training in the Lone Star State - I do like those cowboys!
Texas
Have you wondered why the problem with looting was practically non-existent in Texas after Hurricane Rita? Go see the link.
Texas
Have you wondered why the problem with looting was practically non-existent in Texas after Hurricane Rita? Go see the link.
posted by Grizzly Mama | 23:54
67 Comments:
They look like my kinda people! The laws in Texas and now Florida support the "castle doctrine" instead of the felon's prosperity, so some freelance Socialist can't easily get away with making what's yours his.
Or because in Texas a city of half a million people wasn't completely flooded and deserted (police included) and people had ways of getting food.
Toadie doesn't believe in the right of citizens to bear arms or protect their own property with firearms.
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion, Toadie.
Toady shoulda been in Watts in 1965 and LA in 1992 and watched those people reduce entire towns to rubble and kill many innocent people. If those people had been able to use guns for defense of life and property, most of the looting and killings might have been avoided.
Toadie would have been one of the first to be murdered. This is something that Toadie just refuses to understand. You can cry all of the tears and object all you want to the injustices of the world - it won't matter. The bad guys will kill you anyway - they don't care!
They don't care that you love them. They just want to kill someone who is 1.) handy and 2.) does not have the capacity to defend him/herself.
Check this out...
http://www.nbc6.net/news/5044483/detail.html
Looks like Florida is one step ahead. Shoot first then ask questions!
Gaffe - you're such a slave to the leftist media.
FL law - before this new law took effect - required the victim of a crime to retreat. Unfortunately the way that played out meant that many people, who would have defended themselves had it been legal, ended up dead.
Now for example, a woman who is cornered in an alley by a rapist/murderer will not go to jail if she shoots the bastard before he kills her.
FL is playing catch up to many states who recognize the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend their home and person with deadly force if necessary. So FL is not one step ahead - they are late in coming to the party.
You and Toadie are a pair Gaffe.
So if a woman feels she is being threatened then she can open up and fire?
So if you have a dead unarmed man in an alley (who didn't get within 5 feet of the victim) - how is that woman going to prove that man was a potential rapist?
And if I'm walking around, minding my business, and I feel a woman is reaching for her handbag - do I just blast her away because I feel threatened that she may feel threatened and kill me??? lol
Next time I'm in Disneyland I'm going pack me .45
Are you trying to say that a woman who has been cornered in an alley doesn't know whether she's being attacked or not?!
Stay in the UK, hon. Really. You would be dangerous with a weapon!
Found you through Blog roll great site i will be back. I am from Philly as well atleast outside of it.
Have a great day!
That is a tough one to call, Skye. :-D
If I HAD to choose one - I would choose the .45 but only if Gaffe has possession.
Thanks to the new visitor Kate - come back again soon!
I'm not saying that Monica - but surely in the US you have to prove that the potential attacker was a threat. It's a serious question - how would you prove that?
How many crimes have been faked - i.e. someone has been killed where the person has either falsely claimed the dead person was an attacker or mistaken them as an attacker?
Imagine if everywhere you went - everyone has a loaded handgun. Do really think there would be more or less murders?
'A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.
Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 handguns murdered:
373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.
Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.
People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home'
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
I'm far too busy to be arguing with the likes of you, Gaffe. I'll give you some reading to do. Consider it homework. Yeah, yeah - I can throw statistics around just as well as any gun-control nut.
Three Common Myths
Fact Sheet
Criminals and Gun Control
If you're going to insist on carrying that gun, Gaffa, get some training first.
Public Health Gun Crisis debunked
Tons of links with lots of info
Guns and Switzerland
A Little Ditty About YOU and Your Nation - Gun Free England
I cannot feed you anymore Gaffe. You are a grown human being and have the ability to check conflicting viewpoints yourself. I've spent far too much time with you on this.
This ignorance is tiresome. Go! Do your homework now, or it'll be no dinner for you!
First things last Monicar...
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Crime
Assault Victims US: (2,238,480) -7.56 per 1000 people
Assault Victims UK: (450,865) - 7.45 per 1000 people
Murders US: (12,658) - 0.04 per 1000 people
Murders UK: (850)- 0.01 per 1000 people
Murders with firearms: (8,259)US: 0.02 per 1000 people
Murder with firearms: (62) UK 0.00 per 1000 people
So in the States - you are more likely to be assaulted, 3 times more likely to be murdered and 26 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than the UK
Guns R Cool. Texas rules. ;)
YEEEHAW!
In northern MN almost everyone has at least one gun. I don't have specific statistics, but we have an extremely low crime rate. About every 5 yrs we'll have a serious gun accident. These accidents are ALWAYS a result of ignorance. Train yourself AND your children how to safely handle a firearm and your family will be safer!
'So what Gaffa's saying is that, in a country where firearms are completely banned, a person is only slightly less likely to be murdered than in a country where we have the right to own them.'
I would say over THREE TIMES less likely to murdered is significantly less than 'slightly less'!
Hmmm - given the choice I would expect you would rather have a slightly less chance of being assaulted than having a more significant chance of being murdered. Maybe not?
Still if you can defend your belongings...then maybe that's more important than your own life, or your kid finding the gun etc
Toad your alive I thought you blew up with the other toads!
GAff
373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
whats the population in those countries? What is there murder rate? Wasn't Scotland just listed as the number 1 most violent country in Europe?
oh and last but not least NO was the number 1 homicide city in the country when the police were there.
oh and toad I don't think the looters could eat those TVs or all the other stuff that they carted off
As I say above city troll...
Murders US: (12,658) - 0.04 per 1000 people
Murders UK: (850)- 0.01 per 1000 people
You can check out the other countries populations if you wish.
The US has approx five times the population of the UK.
The UN study, you refer to which which named Scotland as the most violent was was based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries between 1990 and 2000. Yet looking at the reported assaults (which is probably more reliable than a straw poll of random telephone interviews) it is still proportionally more likely to get assaulted in the US than the UK. And what constitutes assault? A fight or scuffle after the pub? Yet look at the murder rates between the two countries - which I would suggest is more of a definite and serious side to violence.
Wow! It's like deja vue all over again. This comment section reminds me of your "global warming" debate.
Interesting, but won't decide anything one way or the other. I believe I am safer in my town because I know several people that have ccw's(carry concealed weapon permits).
Cavalier, Skye, Sprittibee, JC, Tshsmom and Troll - thank you so much. I was exhausted and unable to deal with Gaffe anymore!
Keep believing what you need to believe Gaffe. I thank God every day that you are in the UK, I am an American and the majority here in the US are adamant about protecting our RIGHT to bear arms.
Sandy - Gaffe generates a lot of comments if nothing else! I agree with you though - I feel safer in my community knowing that law-abiding citizens are carrying their weapons. A quick browse through Zendo Deb's blog and you will see many a story of the good guys protecting themselves and their loved ones from the bad guys.
I think Gaffa is FRENCH!
Taking one part of one nation is an easy game to play. lol
Okay so if we take the figures for Scotland as 2.33 deaths per 1000.
Let's look at certain States and Cities in the US...
(1) Louisiana 13.0
(2) Maryland 9.5
(3) Mississippi 9.3
(4) Nevada 8.8
(5) Arizona 7.9
(6) Georgia 7.6
(7) South Carolina 7.2
(8) California 6.8
(9) Tennessee 6.8
(10) Alabama 6.
And cities...
(1) Washington, DC 45.8
(2) Detroit 42.0
(3) Baltimore 38.3
(4) Memphis 24.7
(5) Chicago 22.2
(6) Philadelphia 19.0
(7) Columbus 18.1
(8) Milwaukee 18.0
(9) Los Angeles 17.5
(10) Dallas 15.
Anyhow I don't think the States is a particularly violent place compared to some countries (e.g Columbia, South Africa etc). And the murder rate cannot be purely explained by guns alone. However it certainly doesn't help.
The figures for crime can over period go up and down for various countries. The problem is that the UK isn't hard enough of those who get caught which I think is partly why crime increases. George's pal, Tony BLair is simply too soft on crime. We need more convictions and longer sentences. However our murder rate - has for a long time been significantly been lower than the States and I can't see that changing for a while.
Personally I don't want to see those gangs, muggers and brawlers in Scotland easier and legal access to guns. Nor does Scotland want there to be an increased chance that another Dunblane could happen.
Via con Dios, Gaffe.
Go. Be happy in your wonderland of lower crime! Follow the advice of your leaders and utilize their tips for landscaping around your house. It's the only defense you have against the criminal (probably armed) who places no value on your life. You always have your kitchen knives...for now anyway!
As for me - I would never live in the UK...not without my guns.
'When one rate is rising while the other is dropping, sooner or later the lines will intersect. That's basic math'
That assuming that it will indefinately continue to rise in the UK and continue to fall in the US (at least until the two meet) which is a massive assumption. So all in all - pretty poor maths and logic
Cavalier check these out - see how your theory that UK violence is continually raising is untrue. Whilst we have similar assault rates I can't see how the US murder rate is going to be less than UK anytime soon.
Murder in the UK
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp
Note the recent downturn. Could be a blip?
Violence in the UK
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
Note: During the 90s the police changed the way they record crimes. If so after a raise it goes down.
Murder in the US
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm
Note: After a peak - it falls and then stabilises.
Violent assault in the US
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Note: Even though 2004 was the lowerst - the curve is clearly seems to be stabilising.
Landscaping, Gaffe! LANDSCAPING!
lol Monicker. Why try to make the world a better place with landscaping when you can shoot up the joint? Yerrr haaaa
As you Monicker you wouldn't live in the UK because you couldn't bring your guns. But would any airline let you travel with you guns on board? But what if someone tried to attack you?
Gaffe - another display of ignorance I'm afraid. Atleast in the US a person can travel with their guns. In fact I do it all the time. A call to an airline and they will happily tell you how to do it legally. Along with the guns - you can bring a limit of 15 lbs. of ammunition. (poundage differs between airlines)
I wouldn't attempt such a thing if I were to ever travel to Euro-land. Y'all are a little funny about guns. Squawking chickens is what you sound like. It's very bizarre to hear you go on so much about this.
Don't forget to landscape your property, Gaffe! Landscaping will make all the difference in defending yourself against those who wish to harm you! (and the kitchen knives if they don't outlaw THEM on you...)
Ah but Monicker - it's all very well having the guns in the cargo but can you take them in with you, can you? That is what I was asking.
Tell me Monicker - when don't you have your guns on you? Do you take them when you shop?
Squawk, squawk Gaffe.
Monicker - you are doing a Mike:)
Sounds like my questions are too taxing for you - you have to fall back on parrot noises. lol
btw - funny how no-one is mentioning Scotland now since I posted certain US states and cities murder rate.
Whether I can carry a gun on a plane or grocery shopping has nothing to do with the debate.
Funny how you, Gaffe, never refer to the links that are given to you.
It is all just squawking at this point. Pointless.
I'm just interested Monicker - because you aren't allowed to carry guns on board a plane unless it's in the cargo. Therefore you must feel threatened there. So the gun lobby logic goes that surely passengers should be allowed to carry loaded guns as hand language - self protection and 2nd amendment rights surely?
Unless people are able to carry loaded guns whenever and wherever they want - then surely you are defenceless. You just don't know when someone might try to attack you.
Besides - I have tackled at least one of your links about the violence in gun-free England. Still seems like our murder rate is still considerably lower than the States. Anything else in particular you think we should discuss?
The statistics you quote are NOT very supportive of your position. This has been pointed out to you. You don't want to hear it. The statistics and information we have pointed you toward would help you let go of your bias. You don't want to do that.
Then you start with an untrue statement about me being unable to transport my firearms across state lines on an airline. I pointed out to you that you were (again) wrong.
You are squawking and we are getting tired of listening.
Monicker - please tell me which airline in the US allows passengers to take loaded gun on board as hand luggage?
Gaffauk Your sounding like Jo or Chris Gaskin on ATW. If your interested in facts compiled by a liberal that prove everything you have to say wrong Look Up books by a guy Named John R Lott he conducted a ten year study to prove how harmfull guns and the people who carry them are. Except something happened THE FACTS PROVED HIM WRONGE and then a true Miracle took place he released the data and admited he was wronge and wrote two books about it. Do your homework
Who said that ANY commercial airline does? And what does it have to do with the price of eggs in china?
Tiresome, Gaffe. TIRESOME!!
Monicker 'Then you start with an untrue statement about me being unable to transport my firearms across state lines on an airline. I pointed out to you that you were (again) wrong'
Monicker you are squirming. You said I was wrong and I am asking which airline does this. I had already qualified that this was not in the cargo but you insisted I was wrong.
So which airline is it?
As for relevance - gunowners believe they need guns on them to protect themselves. But how can you fly if you can't to your guns?
Anyone shooting a "looter" carrying goods essential to survival (i.e., food) after a disaster like what hit New Orleans should be shot themselves.
It isn't a question about "liberalism" or "conservatism", it's a question about people starving because Mother Nature decided to send a hurricane through town, flooding it. If in a situation like that you choose to stop folks from taking medicines and food that they need, well, you're the one deserving to be shot.
I'm not the one squirming Gaffe - you are. Again - you have not answered my question as to why this is relevant.
Snay - no one has suggested shooting people who are taking food or water.
I do not carry my gun at all times, Gaffe. In fact I rarely do unless there are circumstances that cause me to be concerned.
Is it a requirement now that if I support the 2nd amendment then I must carry my gun at all times? If I don't it somehow negates my support?
I really don't understand where you are going with this. I wish you would just be honest and say outright what it is you're implying.
I have read all the comments between monicaR and gaffauk. I just have one question for gaffauk.
Where in the hell did you get the idea that monicaR just had to have a K added to her name?
Did you feel she is lacking something and out of kindness, you gave her your K. Or is it, (as I think)because you don't pay attention to what you read because you are too busy tpying your response that doesn't make a lot of sense.
And I see I mis-spelled typing in my haste to comment. LOL
Sandy - Monicar calls me Gaffe and I call her Monicker;)
Just a harmless game (I think! - hope she doesn't get grizzly and shoot me)
Monicker - not carrying guns at all times does not negate your support for the 2nd ammendment.
My point is - that in this crazy world we live in - do you really want people carrying guns wherever they go?
The idea, as I understand it, is tha the gun lobby support self defence by being able to have access to guns. Yet you do not know when you are going to be mugged or attacked. It could be in the shops, in your home, in your office or when you are traveling.
So you can see why I am refering to one part of this. Airtravel. I seriously don't believe you can carry loaded guns as hand luggage onto airlines. But in these days of terrorism and plane hijacks - do you think passengers should be able to??? After all it's their 2nd amendment right
Personally I don't think too many people would feel safe knowing that their fellow passengers have got loaded guns.
I would like to throw my two cents in here in response to Gaffes question about airline passengers carring guns.
I think this is where common sense comes to play.
I would NOT want passengers carring guns aboard a plane I was on. BUT, I would feel a lot safer if the pilots were armed and at least two armed air marshalls aboard.
As for the general public in the USA, in order to carry a concealed weapon in most States, you have to go through a qualifying course given by a State approved instructor. I am opposed to just anyone carrying a gun. I have no problem with trained people carrying a concealed weapon. I just hope they are around if I need them.
The sad thing about gun control is that only honest citizens abide by it. The crooks and hoodlums love gun controled cities and states. The last thing they want is to run up against a trained armed citizen.
And I believe a lot of our crime problem is because of our bleeding heart liberal laws that let criminals out time after time to commit the same crime.
It is a known fact that if you put a murderer to death, he will not kill again.
I do NOT support citizens carrying loaded weapons onto airplanes. My reason for this is that you have to be WELL trained to shoot in an environment like that. Air Marshal's go through hell and back with their training.
I - along with Sandy - support PILOTS carrying loaded weapons. They also are required to go through hell and back with training in order to carry a loaded gun in the cockpit.
There is nowhere in the US that a person can carry a concealed weapon without a permit that I know of. There are a few places (I believe) where it is fine to carry a weapon without a permit as long as it is not concealed.
Don't worry Gaffe. We are legislated to death over this one.
Apparently Two states (Vermont and Alaska) allow any non-criminal to carry without a permit of any kind.
As for planes - how do you know if there is a Sky Marshal on the plane? Have they put one or even 2 Sky Marshals on every commercial flight? Also I have heard a lot of pilots do not want to have guns.
Also some States it seems doesn't allow concealed guns to be carried in public places or public events - lets hope criminals don't attack there.
I was just wondering - why do you think that the US has a relatively high murder rate? It can't just be the guns as Canada and as you say Switzerland have high amount of gun ownership and yet do not have the same murder rates.
Anyone else think Gaffa is in need of a "cyber intervention?"
The Gaffa seems to spend WAY too much time in front of a computer... and that is something coming from me...
Wonder if they have "Internets Anonymous" in the UK?
I think gaffauk is the devil's advocate. I bet he goes to all the liberal blogs and puts negative comments there too.
A HUGE number of pilots have expressed interest in carrying loaded weapons into the cockpit. It's not surprising when you remember that a great many pilots are veterans.
The bureaucratic red tape is putting the kibosh on the training process for the pilots. Some pilots have completed the training and ARE carrying. Not nearly as many as WANT to. The government was against it and the pilots unions threatened to shut the industry down if something wasn't instituted to make this happen.
As for Air Marshalls - Gaffe - a huge hiring frenzy occurred (I applied myself! LOL! Too old...) and the gist of it is this: You have no idea if an Air Marshal is on your flight or not. That in itself is a deterrent to those wishing to pull funny business.
I am perfectly comfortable with the pilots being armed and I am equally comfortable with an Air Marshal being armed on my flight. I would love it if an Air Marshal were on every flight but I don't think this is true. I think they are on far more flights than you are talking about though.
I don't have a problem with Alaska's and Vermont's law if that is true. Not at all.
How would you like to explain the crime rate in YOUR country? This is a silly question and one that I am not able to answer in detail. However I think that you linking it with gun ownership by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS does not hold water in explaining the crime rate in the US.
Apparently Air Marshalls are on between 1 and 10% of flights.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011237-9757r.htm
Also seems like any hijackers will know who to strike...
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2004/12/15/13956.html
You are right that the majority of pilots surveyed agree with them being armed - but will the 25% or so who don't be forced to be armed?
So I'm on a flight, chances are there isn't a sky marshall (I would of noticed if there was) and chances are the pilot 'might' agree to be armed but isn't yet. Hell - I should have my own gun in my hand luggage.
As for different crime in different countries. What's silly about that? These blogs discuss all sorts of wide ranging topics. As I say above - I don't think guns are the only factor at all. Otherwise countries like Canada and Switzerland would have far higher murder rates.
As for UK violence - abuse of alcohol (and drugs), soft on crime, gangs, football agression,
bad education and parenting are some of the places I would start with.
It's silly because I'm not here to analyze my country's crime rate. There are many people out there who like to posit theories about crime rates. I could spend hours doing that...I don't want to.
YOU are the one drawing a line between gun ownership by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS and what you consider a high crime rate here in the US - not me.
I don't think there is anything out there REQUIRING pilots to be armed - so the whatever (arbitrary) percentage (that you dream up) would not likely be forced to carry a loaded weapon. It's not even an issue...why bring it up?! Just to have something irrelevant to argue about, I fear.
Maybe we could take up a collection to provide Gaffa with some professional help...
Anyone who spends this much time in front of a computer must be in need of an intervention...
Take up a collection for me, Mike. *I* need professional help after grappling with the mental gymnastics of Gaffe!!!
Funny how Sgt.Miko loves to go for tangents and hypocrisy:)
Monica: Did you install one of those moonbat autorant machines? That last "comment" MUST be a Gaff-bot.
Sgt.Miko's bot-code
10 Does person agree with me? i.e. Do they think sunshine emits from George Bush arse?
20 If yes goto 70
30 If no - are they FRENCH? Check if they like snails.
40 Are they SOCIALIST? If they don't vote Republican they then must be a pinko commie.
50 If not SOCIALIST OR FRENCH then person must be computer.
60 Reply with tangents and hypocrisy. END
70 Print 'Hey you love everything Bush does too! Let's moan about the MSM'
Gaffe that was clever - and I liked your playing with the 'if, then, else' statements - and although I don't agree that Mike spews in the way you describe - I do see your point that ALL of the leftist auto-ranting could be compared to what the left feels the right believes.
*INHALE DEEPLY***EXHALE*
Except that most of what the left accuse the right of asserting (such as sunshine comes out of Bush's ass) isn't actually the right asserting it....it is only the left conjuring the assertion out of thin air and nobody on the Right really follows Bush like an automaton. Nobody. EVERYBODY on the Right that *I KNOW* has their problems with Bush although supporting the general direction in which he is leading the country.
*INHALE****EXHALE*
It is not true that Republicans who support Bush agree with everything the man or his administration does. I've seen this being thrown at me too many times to let it pass. I never let that pass because it is a blatant lie.
**INHALE DEEPLY***EXHALE**
In addition, along the spectrum of political belief, there IS such a thing as a socialist AND a communist. The reality IS that the far left holds to a socialist and yes! even communist belief.
If I MUST I will happily point you toward groups here in America (Such as International ANSWER) that really, truly are for real communist.
It is not something to scoff at - it is the truth.
As my daddy always taught me - and I've never forgotten it!!:
Better Dead Than Red!
Thanks for your thoughtful answers Monicar - that seems very reasonable.
I just believe there is a range of political views out there and even within individual along that spectrum - there are some things we can agree with.
I grew up in a UK conservative household and it is unlikely that I would ever voted for a socialist party as I find that along with Communism (it's even uglier sister) just too impractical to say the least.
However I have moved from supporting a UK party on the right (Tories)to a Liberal Party. Now we can discuss liberalism, classic, neo, modern and american liberalism, those who support big government,local government, Libertarism, US democrats etc - but I think it is a fundamental error by some on the right to describe Liberals as being identical to socialists.
Liberals are for capitialism. Some of them can be criticised for being too concerned with individual civil liberties as opposed to the dangers to society, too soft on crime etc - but they don't want to nationalise everything and share it all out.
As for Bush - well I do find it hard to agree with most of his international policies. Reagan and Thatcher were generally fine. The only time I can think when I agreed with Bush was when US troops went into Afghanistan.
As for communists in America - why not? I can never see the US (or UK) ever voting them in or allowing Communist to stage a coup. Although it's telling that Communists countries are never usually, if at all, democratic. If it was that good then why not let people vote for it?
I see Gaffe - I mean Gaffa - that you might not understand that the liberal movement has been hijacked by the socialists and communists in the United States of America. An OLD STYLE liberal is as you describe. OLD STYLE liberals are leaving the democrat party in droves because the far left is leading the party over the cliff.
Old style liberals are actually conservatives now. Yes - I know. It's a kick in the ass. But true!!
So when we talk 'liberals' here these days - we are not talking old style liberals - we are talking the NEW liberals. The ones who claim to be 'just left of center' but really are far over the edge into full blown socialism and communism.
It's just what has happened to the parties here in the US recently.
To avoid any misunderstandings I usually try to remember to use the term 'leftist' rather than 'liberal' when referring to the crazies.
I am probably closer to a libertarian than a conservative. I am fully behind and support my fellow citizens who are conservatives in my country. I prefer that direction IMMENSELY over the direction that the leftists are attempting to drag us.
It is always a back and forth, tug of war here. After 9/11 many people woke up and came out to throw their weight behind the conservatives. Including me even though I was fairly politically involved in my community before 9/11 - after 9/11 it became much more important to me.
Whilst I think it's good to be libertarian - I wonder how libertarian most political parties are. For instance - conservatives sometimes talk about the virtues of self-sufficiency and how they are against government interference into people's lives.
Yet when it comes to women having abortions, gay people being able to marry, people smoking cannibis etc - then suddenly they want government to intervene into people's lives.
A true libertarian would have problems with government regulating any of the things you are talking about.
Republicans have all sorts of opinions on those things. No one that I know fits perfectly into any political ideology. Neither do I.
Post a Comment
<< Home