I'm running for office this year

As I mentioned when I did my forum "introduction", I'm running for office this year. I'm officially announcing at a special event I'm having at this micro-brew pub locally. Where else would a soccer & rugby fan announce his intentions?

I'm already a bit nervous about the announcement. So far, 70 people have RSVP'd and that is a bit scary. I'm a political rookie, so it blows me away that 70 people would come to hear me speak.

Anyways, I'm running for State Rep in Michigan and I'm a realist, I have no real shot at winning (especially since I'm running as a Libertarian, I have ballot access, thats about it). But its something I really believe in and I will continue to fight for what I believe in. Hopefully a few people will agree with me and it won't be a complete white wash.

The Ron Paul supporters locally have already agreed to help me out, which is great actually. In most years, Third Party candidates must go it alone, so it is nice to know that I will have some help.

I plan on raising no more than $1000 for my campaign. With this being my first time out, the less paperwork, the better. Beyond that, I will fund my own campaign. After I reach the $1000 mark with donors (I'm already 1/3 of the way there and I haven't announced yet), I'm going to ask that people donate to a charity rather than my campaign and there will be links to many worthwhile charities on my website.

People say I'm crazy, but at least locally, the only time voters get exposed to Third Party candidates is prior to a General Election. I will be featured in a newspaper article, I will be allowed to debate (something our presidential candidate won't be able to do) and if I can find even 10 more people who may join the party and grow our efforts locally, I've done my job.

Enough about me...

As for the Libertarian Party presidential race, man, we have no one I can get excited about. In years past, we've had candidates who, even though you knew they didn't have a chance to win, you could at least get excited about supporting them. We don't have that at the moment. Our national convention is in May and my hope is, either Ron Paul drops out of the Republican race and seeks our nomination (he still has a lot of money on hand) or someone like Bob Barr decides to run (he of course is a former Republican Congressman who joined our party in 2007 and is now a member of the Libertarian National Committee). We need a candidate, who at the very least, will garner some attention.

 

RE: I

DtD,

I admire your idea. I think it is about time that less "politically" savvy candidates make thier way onto the ballot.

I think Ron Paul has done wonders for the Libertarian Party. I think more people have heard about the party through Ron's message than have ever been exposed to it before. This is great for political ideologies as now people like myself who've always had a slight identity crisis politically now understand that there are others in the world who think along the same lines.

Altough I dont rule out a third party run for Ron, most especially if Bloomberg gets in, I think the current strategy is the most effective.

In a way I'm proud to hear what you posted. Good Luck!

 

RE: I

Thanks for the kind words. I'm sitting here at work and still half asleep, so after I posted this I was like "Did I even make sense?"

Prior to joining the Libertarian Party in 2002, I worked on Republican campaigns from the time I was 14. I've always had an interest. I also seemed different than other republicans I associated with. Once I found out about the Libertarian Party back in 2000, I realized that was my political home. I full filled my commitments in 2000 & 2001, as I will not back out of something I agreed to do, but once I was freed up a bit, I joined the LP.

Locally I've served as Chairman & Vice Chairman and I'm currently the County Rep on the local Executive Committee (I was asked to Vice Chair again, but turned it down because my free time will be limited this year).

 

You have my respect. It can't be easy to get out, knock on doors and sell yourself. I appreciate anyone who does it on the local level.

Related to the subject, I've always kinda thought of Michigan as a (relative) hot bed of libertarians and was a little surprised not to see Ron Paul do better there. Don't know the root of this exactly or if there’s any validity to it at all, but I always tend to associate the crazed IRS hatin, multi gun totting, libertarian stereotype with Michigan. Not that I'd ever sterotype or anything :roll:

 

I bet libertarians dont do better in MI because of the auto unions. All Mitt had to do was say he'd bring back the days of old (not going to happen as everyone knows) and he won. Libertarians, even if you disagree with them, do tend to deal with reality so they wont win in MI.

Dawg, I wish you luck. I have many Libertarian leanings but have never been able to agree with their belief in gun ownership. Do Libertarians still believe strongly about this? I think it is ludicrous. It is not a right protected by the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, Americans did not want a standing army. They feared a standing army after being a British colony and after the occupation of Boston which led to the Revolution. The founding fathers solution in terms of national security was to have armed citizens ready to come to their nations defense - militias. This is not applicable today and hand gun ownership (I'll give you rifles if you really must kill Bambi in order to survive) is a scourge to our nation and police forces. Face it, a hand gun is meant to be concealed - that goes beyond self-preservation.

A high school girl I knew was shot and killed two blocks from my house while she was walking to school at 8 in the morning. She was killed by a guy with a full-ride academic scholarship to Ohio State. He was troubled and obsessed with her. She was killed in front of the police station and across the street from City Hall. At that location at 8 am on a school day in a middle class suburb she should have been completely safe. However, this is not the case when a 19 yro troubled boy can buy a gun. Even sadder is that her family immigrated from China in order to protect their children from oppression.

 

I'm not a fan of gun control laws, if that answered your question.

 

Dawg, I wish you luck anyway as I'm always a fan of third party candidates. I have voted for them even if they are against hand gun control.

Anyway, I would be curious to hear why you dont like gun control. Do you have reasons beyond the belief that the gov't should'nt restrict personal freedoms?

 

Mo,

As much as I sympathize with the family of the victim you mentioned above and the terrible consequences of that young mans actions, I have to remind you that the gun had nothing to do with the crime.

If you would omit your last sentence in this paragragh and replace it with an attack with any other weapon, including his hands, a bat, a toothpick, you can see that the gun was secondary.

Sure it probably made it easier for him to do it, meaning he just had to pull a trigger, but it had nothing to do with his motives or the final result. A troubled youth with obsessive tendencies will find a way, especially one as resourceful as to be considered for academic scholarship, to enact his will on the life of that young girl.

Handgun or overall gun ownership has statistically shown to keep people more safe from 'occupied' home invasion (when a house is robbed with people home). Even if you don't own a gun in these regions the prospect of owning one deters criminals from invading occupied houses.

There are also statistics available on the web showing that over 400k self defense situations happen a year where a hand gun is used (not necessarily shot) to defend ones self against possible harm or damage.
These people are not convicted of crimes.

Most importantly, it is necessary to have available the means to take back our country from opressive governement if the need arises. Its important that those who dont see this as applicable in todays "civilized" society, truly understand that all things in the realm of possibility remain possible. By that I mean preparedness is key, and symbolically those who wish to step outside thier elected rolls need only to look back over his shoulder at those who elected him for guidance.

I never think its going to come to that. But I also know that every gov't seeking to oppress for whatever justification has always disarmed its people first, and done it under the guise that it was 'for their own good'.

There is only ONE definition of freedom. The Libertarians seek to bring that idea back to our country.

One other comment: People may see them as extreme, but the more this country relies on the government, the less free we are becoming... we need Libertarians to counter this flow. Or our kids will never know freedom like we did, like whe never knew the freedom that our grandparents had.

OH... there is no such things as less free... its called NOT Free. The Bill of Rights is a formula, if one right is taken away... the whole results is compromised.

 

I found this interesting article:

THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: America’s Secret Army
January 8, 2008: Most American men are unaware that they are in the Army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn’t want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else).
The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able-bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.
Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think you should have to have a license to purchase and/or own a gun, with said license requiring classes in firearm safety and a written test. i.e., similar to a license to drive a car. Licensing would do three things:
1. Make it easier to check if someone can legally buy a gun
2. Help reduce accidental firearm deaths by ensuring gun owners are knowledgeable about gun safety and proper storage.
3. Help reduce "impulsive killings" with guns, as if you don't already own a license, during the time it takes to get one, you may have second thoughts about what you were thinking about doing.

Just my 2 cents...

 

The thing is when people carry guns bad bad things happen. A conflict happens and emotions run high, instead of punching the guy in the face they reach for their gun. Instead of having a fist fight you have a murder.

I can tell you from observation reading the paper in the twin cites so many of the murders, particularly in St. Paul are committed, not by hardened criminals ,but by 15 and 16 year old kids who are listening to rap music and pretending to be gangsters. The thing is they have access to guns and occasionally while acting macho and in an everyday confrontation they reach for the gun, it only takes a second. These are not drug wars or deep seeded conflicts its one kid insulting another kids mom and out of reaction that kid pulls his gun. Boom one fifteen year old dead and another with life in prison and they regret the decision almost instantly. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A GUN the murder doesn't happen, to suggest that the murder would find another way to commit that murder if he had no access to a hand gun is in most cases ludicrous.

There is big difference between hunting rifles and hand guns! This is a huge problem in this country, we need to get the hand guns off the streets.

 

I truly believe Spencers account is caused by community breakdown. Guns have been around alot longer than rap music, yet the most violent years concerning guns are relatively recent.

Spence... I'm no gun advocate, but I'm less of a utopian. That being said, the fact is that people get beat up, jumped, stabbed, etc with these "gangster rap music kids". I'll be 30 in a few months... I've listen to gangster rap music since I was 11 years old, I've yet to shoot, or stab anyone.

Also, just because you make a handgun illegal doesnt mean they will ever be off the streets. The only thing that comes from making hand guns illegal is that you enable ONLY the criminals to carry... because guns are THAT available.

A Federal gun ownership restriction law is a BAD idea... a local state liscence is not a bad idea.

In NY, you cant own a handgun legally unless you get a background check that makes you wait for a number of days. You can however get a shotgun or rifle anonymously.

The kids who shoot other kids are usually cowards. Someone I grew up with shot another because he was afraid to confront him. its cowardly...

I dont know if you've ever seen the original "FRIDAY" with ice cube and Chris Tucker... the art in the movie is sometimes lost in translation... but its all about being a man, without a gun.

 

In New Orleans last year 161 people were murdered, 131 of them were black men. This past year 209 people were murdered in New Orleans with just about all the victims again being black men.

Violence won't ever go away and the US will always be plagued by random acts of gun violence, but if we could get black men to stop killing other black men America would feel a lot "safer". Black society would be so much more as well.

The real deal is men in general. We're prone to violence, especially in our youth. This fact won't ever change, but we probably can do more to control it by acknowledging the problem with men and dealing with it, i.e, watching boys more closely for emotional and behavior problems, and getting them help, etc.

 

Its worse outside of the Big Easy. Cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, DC average about 300 murders a year. And the same goes for Chicago, NYC, and LA, who i believe register their stats differently because there is no actual LA or NYC but boroughs/'hoods.

Call me a loon, and a lot more should be done to alleviate the issue of inner-city crime, but I truly believe the second amendment should be repealed. Thousands of blacks, latinos, and other minorities die each year and our society seems to shrug it off. Only in foreign nations and white suburbs do we clamor about needless deaths.

The last season of the Wire is currently airing. If you get HBO, watch it.

 

Lyle -

Are you implying that almost 209 of the black perpetrators of this crime were also black?

Its no secret that poorer neighborhoods have more crime, and probably more violent crimes... drug use, petty theft etc. These are social issues.

I hope you guys can look past this tool to kill and look into the issues that cause "black on black" crime, drug use, poverty, etc....

There are direct relationships to the affordabilty of healthcare and violent crime... and other research that will show you.... the gun as nothing to do with the crime.

Prohibition was a social issue... it created more crime than it stopped. Alcohol consumption was in demand and violent criminals found their way to work in this industry... and other were born out of it.

New Orleans has a particular example of how a lawless land reminded some that keeping arms is a good idea. Looting, rape, murder, and more ran rampant through the flooded areas of NO after Katrina... the National Guard and blackwater were sent to secure the areas... they started by collecting guns.... the crime rate skyrocketed when word got out that people were unarmed.

Guns don't kill people... people kill people...
unless your Chris Rock...
... then bullets kill people.

 

Repeal the 2nd Ammendment and this country is lost.

Take one right away... and hope they let you keep the rest...

More violent gun deaths PER CAPITA happen outside these areas... dont let the gun control lobbyists fill your head with statistical algorithms.

 

I'm not a gun control lobbyist. Nor do I rail against the NRA and think "Bowling for Columbine" was a quality movie.

But living in Baltimore and reading the murder tolls, how cant I think that handguns should be outlawed?

Their removal wont change the dire situations occurring on the corners of cities in this country. But outlawing hand guns, in correlation with changes in drug and criminal laws, curtailing police corruption, sufficiently funded public schools and quality teaches, and creation of capital and business opportunities, is the only way to reverse the rapidly dwindling innercities.

There used to be communities in West Philly, West Baltimore, SouthEast DC, etc. Now they're just bodies.

 

I understand how you feel. Thank you for also identifying all the social issues that started this decay of those neighborhoods. Your right, Gov't needs to work better... and in that case it needs to get smaller and be at a more local level. The problem is that the gov'ts don't care.

Banning guns will simply make more criminals... it will do nothing about the amount of guns on the street. Politicians will have you believe that the only thing you can do is to arrest more criminals... but thats just BIG GOV'T talking... how about fixing the broken "solutions" first.

i was just recently in South Philly... a few blocks from TEMPLE university... that place looks worse than the best places in IRAQ and only a short trip south from Center City... all pretty and clean.

 

Yes, in numbers... but not per capita. Per 100,000 people New Orleans is the most violent city in the US right now... along with Gary, IN. Gary actually might be slightly higher, but last year New Orleans had the highest per capita murder rate in the US. Obviously, larger cities might have higher murder rates, but a few don't though... like Atlanta, GA which had something 130 murders this year. Houston may be in the 200s, maybe in the 300s, but it is a city of 2-3 million people (5 million in the metro area). New Orleans is a city of 400,000-500,000.

 

I'm not implying. It is a fact that black men in New Orleans committed almost all of the murders in New Orleans this past year.

I also wasn't commenting on guns, just violence. The problem is men in general, and the larger problem in the United States is black men.