PARTY CONDEMNS SENATORS FOR RESTRICTING GUN RIGHTS
The Libertarian Party of South Carolina condemned (by name) seventeen State Senators who killed a bill that would have done away with permitting requirements for the carrying of concealed firearms.
According to a press statement issued by the party, “their justification is that this right has been infringed for 140 years and should be continued to be violated.”
The statement added that it was time South Carolinians stop electing lawmakers who “consider their opinions to be greater than the Constitution,” adding that “when the election comes and it’s time to vote realize that a Libertarian (candidate’s) first oath is to the Constitution not to party politics.”
Only four Senators – Lee Bright, Tom Corbin, Shane Martin and Katrina Shealy – voted to move the measure forward.
Seventeen Senators – Karl Allen, Sean Bennett, Creighton Coleman, Greg Gregory, Greg Hembree, Brad Hutto, Kevin Johnson, Marlon Kimpson, Gerald Malloy, Larry Martin, Shane Massey, Thomas McElveen, Luke Rankin, John Scott, Paul Thurmond, Ross Turner and Tom Young – voted to kill the bill.
Making the vote even more egregious? The South Carolina agency charged with processing concealed weapons permits – the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) – has been violating state law by refusing to let lawful gun owners carry their weapons during delays caused by bureaucratic incompetence.
Ah yes, life under “Republican” rule …
65 comments
How many normal South Carolinian really give a rat’s ass that a bunch of nut-case reactionary Libertarians are livid about anything? The best thing that they could do for the state is take one of their treasured guns and use it for target practice–with themselves as the target.
My head is asploding. I done shot myself.
I’ve often said that if we could split America up into two seperate entities:
The ‘Murican territory and the United States territory…where ‘Murica would get to do whatever it likes and has been complaining it can’t do all these years (Christian only prayer in schools…if they even have public schools, two assault weapons for every man, woman and child that can be carried loaded with safety off 24/7 no matter where you go, no welfare whatsover, no unions, no medical safety net, no environmental regulations, no Social Security, no Medicare, no taxes, no teaching of evolution, no female reproductive rights, no laws protecting minorities…well you get the idea…that within a year they would be BEGGING to be let back in as the ensuing post-apocolyptic hellscape would make Mad Max look like Club Med.
Meanwhile the normal U.S. would shoot to number 1 in all categories and indicators of success measures as we’d no longer have these loons gumming up the works of progress.
That would be anarchy, moron.
You know, TBG is an Agnostic…yet still he would rather live in *your* ‘Murica than *your* United States. TBG suspects that after a year, *your * United States will be well on the road to where all other socialist utopias always wind up.
You’ll really regret arming “Murica when you run out of money and come to steal our stuff…Hoss.
Run out of money? The SC House just passed a $24 Billion budget. $7 Billion of SC moneys and $17 Billion in federal money….. yes who will run out of money first?
There are many wealth producing folks in “Blue” states that would jump at the chance to live in Limbaughsaphatkhunt”s ‘Murica. Also most of the unproductive in the “Red” states would move to Limbaughsaphatkhunt’s United States.
PRO TIP:
Leftists, as a rule, have trouble understanding,that when something is changed , people react to it. They are always perplexed as to why, for example, a tax increase never brings in the amount of revenue predicted.
TBG’s term of the day: The Laffer Curve.
Rightest, as a rule, underestimate how much the benefit from taxes.
“There are many wealth producing folks in “Blue” states that would jump at the chance to live in Limbaughsaphatkhunt”s ‘Murica.”
Then why don’t they? There are plenty of Murica’s around the world who would welcome them.
So it’s ok to steal from people if they live out of state..?
Then why don’t you? There are plenty of Murica’s in the world?
Name one.
*crickets and spring peepers*
Must be the warmer weather……..
In the Western Hemisphere
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Costa Rica
Panama
Honduras
Ecuador
Peru
Guatemala
Belize
Most Central and many South American Countries.
In the Easter Hemisphere there are a lot more to choose from
Most of Sub-Sahara Africa really. (Not including South Africa and Kenya)
Bangladesh
Samoa
Indonesia
Bali
Federated States of Micronesia
Granted in most you would not get the Christian only part, but the rest pretty much.
TBG, admittedly didn’t specify… but was hoping for “rule of law” and the Bill of Rights.
Costa Rica, Belize, Bali, and parts of Indonesia don’t look too bad, as it is.
All of the countries named have Constitutions that guarantee individual rights, even good old Somalia has such a document. A government that does not simply ignore those rights and the rule of law is a lot more complicated. That is called civilization. And there is a price for civilization, taxes.
You are unlikely to get the rule of law outside of the US, Canada, Australia, GB and the European Union; Because where there is the rule of law and not of men, the wealthy and the powerful cannot direct all government services and benefits to themselves and leave the poor and middle class out. Much like libertarians want to do.
Most other states operate on a more capitalistic system. You pay directly for government services or to be left alone. But hey, the overall cost to the wealthy is almost certainly lower.
As long as you don’t give a crap about the trappings of Civilization, I would encourage the wealthy to move. . I do wish the US had a you can’t come back or do business here rule however.
Mr. Bartfast agrees with TBG. The arguments from the lefties, lately, sound more like the old joke reiterated in Brook’s movie, History of the World, Pt.1:
Waiter: Jesus!
Jesus: Yes?
Waiter: Jesus!
Jesus: What? Yes?
Waiter: Jesus!
….
*From memory, too lazy to GOOGLE……
[at the LAST SUPPER]
Jesus; One of you has betrayed me [pause]………Judas!
Judas: (Visibly shaken) WHAT, MY LORD?
Jesus: Please pass the butter.
Are all your arguments made of straw?
How so?
South Carolina is not a state where true freedom exists. From the very imagining of a state in a country, there have always been the royalists. Whether it was money, friendship or just influence, the royalists have always ruled, even when the War for Independence was won. They just changed coats. For a long time the royalists were the Democrats, but they chose socialism and became despised, as well they should. So the royalists changed coats to become Republicans. Some really were and are Republicans, believing in a free state under a federation’s constitution.. but they are very few. There is more to this, but the fact is that Larry Martin’s family And Hugh Leatherman’s family, and so many, many others simply want to rule you. If you agree with them, you may well prosper. If you don’t.. well, there’s always the highway.
If you care this much about freedom and limited gov’t. I suggest you move to Somolia. There’s very little gov’t and I hear they have lax gun control laws too.
And virtually no taxes. In fact they have no taxes if you have the wherewithal to become a war lord.
That’s exactly what America was like prior to 1913.
Mass starvation, warlords, etc.
Now THAT’s exactly what I’m talking about – a completely false statement… unless, of course, you were being sarcastic, in which case.. ya got me!
If your intellect is represented by your comment, your going to need a logic class. Failing that, read:
Logic for Dummies
Paperback: 388 pages
Publisher: For Dummies; 1 edition (November 29, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0471799416
ISBN-13: 978-0471799412
Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 7.4 x 0.8 inches
The Left school of argumentation and cliche’s has really drilled it’s group on the “Somalia” argument. The only problem? It’s not true, Somalia has a government. In fact, it has too many of them which is part of the problem.
How true. Somalia has an 8th Century AD system of fiefdoms in some areas and royalist governments in others.
Freedom exists in SC. The “good” people of this state just refuse it every election.
Once again, I cannot argue with your point.
I don’t understand the continued allegation of SLED delaying CWP renewals. I sent mine in and the renewal in less than 45 days.
If you wait to late how is that SLED”s fault.
On a side note, just mailed my non-resident CWP application to Arizona today.
$65 for a 5 year permit.
According to my instructor Arizona is the best state for a reciprocal at this time.
It’s possible that SLED got slammed with a ton of renewals. I know four years ago gun/ammo sales were through the roof because of the fearmongering that Obama was going to enact sweeping gun control legislation (he didn’t). CWP sign ups skyrocketed as well.
CWP only lasts four years, so it is entirely possible that they got slammed again by the same people asking for renewals.
That doesn’t let SLED off the hook, IMO, but it does offer some explanation.
I had New Hampshire permits to cover me in GA for a few years until they jacked the price up from $20 to $100. In addition to GA, they also gave me AL, MS, and PA, which do not honor the SC CWP. It was a good thing while it lasted and if you want to get a permit for those states with a minimum of red tape, it is still a good thing. As I understand it, the new “latest and greatest” thing is the Utah CWP. It covers those states and a few more. It is only $50 or so for the first permit and I believe (subject to correction) that it is $15 for all subsequent renewals. I also believe the Utah permit is good for 5 years, which is something SC should have done. It would have taken some of the load off of SLED that they are always crying about.
I bet you those legislators are quaking in their shoes!Condemned by the Libertarin Party of South Carolina! Like WOW!
Whats next?The Prohibition Party citing some lawmakers for imbibing too much @Happy Hour.
Them libs is purity skerry. Maybe they’ll exhume Ayyyyynnnn Rannnnddddd (Skeerred to type the name) and she’ll come teach us leassssssson. I won’t be able to sleep tonight. But then I’ll read one of her books and go to sleep instantly.
Only nuts carry guns.
Well, I carry a gun and I have nuts, so you were close.
Hi Smirks. I’ve followed this blog for the last few years and have always considered you to be one of the more thoughtful and intelligent commenters. I have one simple question: Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun?
Probably because he IS “thoughtful and intelligent”. He reads and/or watches the news. He is aware that there are more then a few human vermin out there who have no respect and no value of others’ lives, property, or well being, and who would not hesitate to maim or kill him or his if they thought they could get a few bucks out of it for that next hit of meth or crack.
A whole lot of nuts also own hammers, knives, cars and fists…. all things used to kill as well. What’s your point?
— chain saws, axes, wrenches, jumper cables, etc.
TBG’s chainsaw is only capable of killing someone if TBG hits them over the head with it………or if someone is stupid/stubborn enough to pull that rope enough times to bring on a coronary, in a futile attempt to start the damn thing.
It is more useless than tits on a boar hog BigT/GrandTango with an internet connection & keyboard.
Brilliant. Keep it up, we’re fascinated!
I did get my permit renewed within the 90 day period, at least, so I will give them that they didn’t fuck me over.
If you’re mad about SLED not following the law, hold Haley accountable. I read about all this shit where we need to give the Governor more power, and therefore, more accountability. Here we have a supposed pro-gun governor who is letting SLED fuck up? Well, doesn’t she appoint someone to look over SLED? Pretty egregious of her to overlook that for someone who is willing to get every photo op she can holding a gun.
Of course, we won’t hold her accountable because this is SC, home of the career politicians.
I still voice my opposition to the bill in question. Permit holders deserve far more rights, and I do think changes need to be made with the permit system, but I support the permit system itself.
Okay, what I read here is that 4 legislators voted to move the bill forward, and a quick check shows that all 4 are REPUBLICANS! Instead of slamming the GOP legislators who voted against it, why doesn’t the Libertarian Party of SC send out a press release praising the 4 REPUBLICANS for voting in favor?
Guess that doesn’t fit the template of the LP SC?
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
“Libertarian Republican”
lol…what a bullshit label.
How about “non-committal turd” instead? Aren’t you the guy who stabbed Ron Paul in the back?
What happened, that career move didn’t work out and now you troll state political blogs?
Umm, congratulations? Nearly 25% of the Republicans that voted actually voted the way they were supposed to vote. I mean no worries that only 75% of them likely lied saying that they were for less gun control and governmental interference. Overall I mean that’s Republicans sticking to their words, right? That you can trust your political cash (IE your vote) with them?
Let’s see if I understand what the point of this article: The Libertarian Party, all 29 of them, are upset that those 17 senators voted against their desire to allow people to walk around with their assualt weapons. So those same 29 people are going to go out and organize all of their friends, that will make 37 people, and target those senators. I hope those 17 senators don’t hurt themselves laughing.
this is not good news for the libertarian movement – if it really exists. it spotlights one of their most important defects – the wish to remove human reasoning from governing. i know that sounds like a joke, especially in SC. but nobody wants to be ruled by ideologues with a constitution fetish.
What I don’t understand about the pro-gun lobby and libertarians, is why they think I do not have the right to know when someone approaching me has a gun, and why they don’t think I should have the right to say when someone can have a gun in my home or my place of business.
Why do you need that “right”? Every day you are out and about, you rub shoulders with people who are armed. Thankfully, most are probably good guys; cops, off-duty cops, retired cops, CWP holders, and even otherwise good citizens who are carrying without benefit of a permit, for whatever reason. None of those folks has any desire to rob, murder, or otherwise menace you or yours and contrary to what many of you may believe, none of them will be seized by an uncontrollable spasm leading them to do such. Those good folks, are a counter-balance to the bad ones who are also armed and, with the right amount of incentive or opportunity, WOULD harm you or yours if they thought it would be beneficial to their wants and desires. The bad ones likely will never have a permit, because they don’t care about their record or the law, and they also likely would not be able to get one due to prior criminal history.
Your irrational spasms of hoplophobia do not justify making everyone somehow reveal to you their status as armed citizens or members of law enforcement. IF you discover that a good guy is armed in your home or place of business and are unable to mentally handle it, you can tell them to leave. Failure on their part to do so will automatically invoke state laws regarding trespassing after notice and you can call the police (who are also armed {{{{{SHUDDER}}}}) and start the process to have the person removed from your premises. If a bad guy is armed and in your home or place of business, and he reveals it to you, then you can call the police after it is over and if you are still able, or (since you likely aren’t armed, yourself), you can just bend over and grab your ankles and do whatever he tells you to, and hope he will be gentle.
What an interesting question. Why do I need a right?
Why do you need the right not to have the government other citizens look into your bank account, hack into your personal computer; or read your mail? Mostly it would be good guys and cops/ NSA looking. They would be trying to make sure you are not a terrorist or the victim of bank fraud. None of these folks has any desire to rob, murder or otherwise menace you. Those good folks are a counter-balance to the bad ones. You know the terrorists and the people who hack into your account and steel your money. The good guys are using their computers to protect you from the bad guys who also have computers, and who with the right amount of incentive or opportunity WOULD harm you, steal your money, steal your identity. The bad guys likely will never be a government agent or have a badge because they don’t care about the law, and they also likely would not be able to get one due to prior criminal history.
Your irrational spasms about your privacy do not justify making everyone go to the trouble of obtaining a warrant or notifying you of their intent to access your personal information; or reveal to you their status as members of law enforcement. If you discover a good guy is browsing through your computer or reading your email, and for some silly reason you do not like that, you can tell him to stop. Failure on his part to do so would automatically invoke state laws and you could call the police. Oh wait,he is the police. Ok then no need to complain at all. Besides if you are bad guy they will arrest you and protect me from you. Sounds like a good deal for me.
Nice apples and golf balls comparison.
Not so, the debate is the same. You ask why I need a right. These are not apples and golf balls. This is apples and apples. Two rights both of which have no value by your analysis. Therefore we apparently do not need those rights.
What you are thinking but can’t say because it would destroy your argument, is “but, I don’t trust the government officials that are looking at my bank account and hacking my computer, even though they appear to be good guys, they have credentials showing they are good guys, and they almost certainly mean me no harm.” Which is exactly the same reason I think I have the right to know when a person with a gun is approaching me or coming into my place of business.
The “right” you think you have isn’t, at all. It is a preference.
How would you enforce that “right”, for example, against a group of black teenagers who have the potential to kick the stuffing out of you on the street? You don’t know if they would, you don’t know if they wouldn’t. There are frequent news stories about groups of black teens doing just that. The fact that only a small minority (pun!) of them actually would doesn’t change the equation. Yet you have this “right”.
Right? (pun!)
Perhaps we should pass a law mandating that they wear “Get Whitey” tee shirts so you’ll know if they would or not.
Please note that he put the term “right” in quotes, clearly implying that it isn’t, but you THINK it is.
For example, you have a right to eat, but you don’t have a “right” to be fed.
Well actually Barry I think I do have a right to know when someone who is armed is approaching me, or entering my home or business. It is part of my right of self defense.
Now knowing if somebody approaches you has a gun, I think violates a right to privacy. I’m assuming this is on a public street or any number of public places you do not own. And I don’t think you’d feel very happy to have to tell everybody on the street you have mace or a tazer, or even that you have nothing at all. So yeah on a public street I don’t think you have the right to know if they have a weapon.
However when it comes to private business and your private home, any Libertarian would absolutely say you have the right to bar guns completely from your private property if you choose to do so. It is your private property after all, and you have the right to be secure in your own home.
In fact you can go on the Libertarian Party Facebook page and ask this same question. Somebody will likely respond to you saying something similar to what I just said.
How would I know if you have a fire arm, when I let you in my place of business or my home? I don’t. I have no way to enforce my desire to not have someone bring a fire arm into my place of business.
I believe the only answer is guns should have to be displayed. People should have to carry their fire arms in full view. That allows the rest of us to know whether we want to let you into our place of business or not. That allows the rest of us to make an informed decision. I do not see why you have a right to keep your possession of a fire arm secret. I have no problem displaying any protection device I have. It should deter crime, right?
What is the constitutional source of your right to privacy as to gun ownership?
Your certainly have the right to inquire about guns at your home. You might put up a no guns sign on your front door. Place of business: If you have a public business, you can put up a no gun sign or provide a place to securely check a gun and put everyone through a metal detector so as to assure all who enter that it is a gun free zone. The most dangerous weapon is between peoples’ ears. Check your brain at the door?
I already have a no guns sign at my business. A sign, that makes my property look unsafe, which its not, and decreases its value, but gun nuts don’t care anything about that.
Nonetheless, the other week some idiot brought a gun into my place of business, and made a comment I interpreted as a threat. Why should I have to expend thousands of dollars to prevent someone from bringing fire arms into my house or business.
Because you don’t have a right to anyone else’s business, especially what’s under their clothing, dummy.
When they enter my home or my business it is my business, dummy. What if I have a cash business. Do I not have a right to know that a person I am unfamiliar with just entered my business with a gun.
You have a right to know what’s under everyone’s skirt in your business? Really?
You better install body scanners then. See how smart a business decision that is, dummy.
It’s about horses leaving barns and ancient history.
While it’s literally true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that a specific provision in it prohibits government from infringing the keeping and carrying of arms, that purity began deteriorating before the ink was dry on the parchment.