Libertarians under a street lamp?

It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey. Buyers with recently issued concealed carry permits would be exempted from background checks, as would transfers by gift or bequest, in-person sales outside gun shows, and buyers responding to unpublished (e.g., bulletin-board) notices. More importantly, interstate handgun purchases from dealers would be legalized, added safeguards would be implemented against a federal registry, the time required to complete a background check would be significantly reduced, and interstate transport rules would be liberalized. Those are consequential benefits.

Source: Gun Control: Grounds for Compromise? | Cato Institute

My only idea after this article and the two idiots running for President & VP is that the Libertarian party Is officially desperate to get in power and are willing to sacrifice their once closely held beliefs for a share of the D.C. pie.

I think no party is going to come unscathed from this election. But seeing the Cato Institute whoring themselves like that is amazingly disappointing.


Owner/Operator of this Blog. Pamphleteer De Lux. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

Recommended Posts


  1. Just one more reason not to vote for them.

  2. “It’s doubtful that new gun controls — imposed mostly on persons who are not part of the problem — will be effective.”

    That would have sufficed as the only sentence necessary in this piece. That’s tantamount to admitting that criminals do not obey laws.

  3. I was truly thinking of voting (L) this go-around, but this and a few other changes by them has led me to say no. Unfortunately, I’m at the point that I don’t think I can vote for anyone whose name will actually appear on the ballot. May just pick a name out of the phone book (we still have one, I think) and write that name it. Won’t feel any worse than picking one of the others.

    • Consider:
      You’re not voting for a person to hold the office of President.
      You’re voting for the person who is going to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice to fill Anton Scalia’s huge shoes, as well as (my conservative estimate) two more SCOTUS positions in the next 4 years. I hope that consideration will make it easier for you to hold your nose and vote for the person that has a better chance of picking people for those positions that align with your core values. Or at the very least, prevent the installment of a person who would pick people who’s positions are far more opposite of yours.

  4. Compromise implies give and take. We have taken enough, exactly what part of “Shall not be Infringed” don’t these people get?

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

%d bloggers like this: