infrogmation (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
infrogmation) wrote2002-08-09 09:27 pm
infrogmation) wrote2002-08-09 09:27 pm
Entry tags:
It's A Free Country, As Long As You Stay Within The Two Ruling Parties...
Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Arrested
At State Fair
Huron (3 AUG 2002) - Libertarian candidate for governor, Nathan A. Barton of rural Rapid City, was arrested today by security guards at the so-called "Freedom Stage" on the South Dakota State Fairgrounds, at the beginning of a congressional candidates forum which did not include Libertarian candidate Terry Begay of Volin.
Mr. Barton was standing on the side of the audience area and asking in a loud voice, "Where is Terry Begay? There are three candidates on the ballot for US House, where is the third candidate? Don't we have a right?" when he was grabbed in mid-sentence by two police or sheriffs deputies moonlighting as security for either the State Fair or Dakota News Network (sponsor of the series of three forums, for House, Senate and Governor). All of the forums featured only the Democratic and Republican candidates, and excluded the three Libertarian candidates and one Independent candidate who have made the ballot for the November 5th election for the various offices.
Mr. Barton had earlier spoken to the moderator, who had first said that only "invited" candidates were to be featured, and then claimed that it was only because the Libertarian Party campaigns had not contacted DNN that they were not included. Another Libertarian, Kurt Evans, candidate for the US Senate, had been warned by DNN that if he attempted to go on the stage, he would be stopped by security. Mr. Barton made his comments from the side of the outdoor audience area, and did not attempt to say anything on the stage.
The security guards carried Mr. Barton about twenty yards to the street side near the "Freedom Stage," aggravating an injury to his right thumb (which had been sustained earlier in the week). He was then ordered to immediately allow himself to be escorted from the Fairgrounds, and was told that he would be arrested on trespassing charges if he tried to reenter the Fairgrounds.
Mr. Barton objected to that, stating that he was an exhibitor on the grounds, that it was public land, and that he was only exercising his right to free speech. One of the officers told Mr. Barton, in response, that he didn't like Mr. Barton and didn't like what he was saying, that he was disturbing good people. Mr. Barton replied that was why we had a first amendment: to protect speech we did not like. One of the security guards repeated the order, and Mr. Barton again refused, and the guards then told Mr. Barton that they would arrest him and take him to jail. They handcuffed Mr. Barton, knocking his glasses off, injuring both his right thumb and his left wrist.
Mr. Barton was then taken to the Fairground Security Office, arriving there with blood dripping down his wrists and staining his clothing. A Fairground EMT treated Mr. Barton and he was taken to the Beadle County Jail, where he was booked on charges of "disorderly conduct" and "obstructing a law enforcement officer," and released on $500 bond and a judge's order not to return to the Fairgrounds until after 4 PM that afternoon. Mr. Barton was released about 1 PM, and was well treated at the County Jail and by the arresting officers at the jail.
Mr. Barton's older son, Gareth, was aiding in distributing flyers at the time and witnessed his father's arrest. When Mr. Barton was taken to jail, both his older son and his younger son, Matthias, were left abandoned on the Fairgrounds. Only through the aid of friends were the boys taken care of while Mr. Barton was in a holding cell.
Mr. Barton and other Libertarian candidates emphasize that this treatment of people whose views vary from your own, and the tendency to resort to force in any situation is one of the reasons that they are running for office as Libertarians. Increasingly, on our college campuses, in our schools, and on the media, dissenting views are ridiculed, ignored, and often completely silenced.
Mr. Barton had been at the State Fair since Wednesday, along with other Libertarian candidates and activists at the party booth. This is the first time the Libertarian Party has been able to have a booth at the annual event. Following his release, he returned to West River for other engagements and projects. He intends to maintain his campaign schedule despite the attack and charges. For more information contact: · James Christen, Huron area Libertarian coordinator, 352- 4559 · Bob Newland, SDLP ExComm, 255- 4032 · Nathan Barton, SDLP ExComm, 390-7255
Source
At State Fair
Huron (3 AUG 2002) - Libertarian candidate for governor, Nathan A. Barton of rural Rapid City, was arrested today by security guards at the so-called "Freedom Stage" on the South Dakota State Fairgrounds, at the beginning of a congressional candidates forum which did not include Libertarian candidate Terry Begay of Volin.
Mr. Barton was standing on the side of the audience area and asking in a loud voice, "Where is Terry Begay? There are three candidates on the ballot for US House, where is the third candidate? Don't we have a right?" when he was grabbed in mid-sentence by two police or sheriffs deputies moonlighting as security for either the State Fair or Dakota News Network (sponsor of the series of three forums, for House, Senate and Governor). All of the forums featured only the Democratic and Republican candidates, and excluded the three Libertarian candidates and one Independent candidate who have made the ballot for the November 5th election for the various offices.
Mr. Barton had earlier spoken to the moderator, who had first said that only "invited" candidates were to be featured, and then claimed that it was only because the Libertarian Party campaigns had not contacted DNN that they were not included. Another Libertarian, Kurt Evans, candidate for the US Senate, had been warned by DNN that if he attempted to go on the stage, he would be stopped by security. Mr. Barton made his comments from the side of the outdoor audience area, and did not attempt to say anything on the stage.
The security guards carried Mr. Barton about twenty yards to the street side near the "Freedom Stage," aggravating an injury to his right thumb (which had been sustained earlier in the week). He was then ordered to immediately allow himself to be escorted from the Fairgrounds, and was told that he would be arrested on trespassing charges if he tried to reenter the Fairgrounds.
Mr. Barton objected to that, stating that he was an exhibitor on the grounds, that it was public land, and that he was only exercising his right to free speech. One of the officers told Mr. Barton, in response, that he didn't like Mr. Barton and didn't like what he was saying, that he was disturbing good people. Mr. Barton replied that was why we had a first amendment: to protect speech we did not like. One of the security guards repeated the order, and Mr. Barton again refused, and the guards then told Mr. Barton that they would arrest him and take him to jail. They handcuffed Mr. Barton, knocking his glasses off, injuring both his right thumb and his left wrist.
Mr. Barton was then taken to the Fairground Security Office, arriving there with blood dripping down his wrists and staining his clothing. A Fairground EMT treated Mr. Barton and he was taken to the Beadle County Jail, where he was booked on charges of "disorderly conduct" and "obstructing a law enforcement officer," and released on $500 bond and a judge's order not to return to the Fairgrounds until after 4 PM that afternoon. Mr. Barton was released about 1 PM, and was well treated at the County Jail and by the arresting officers at the jail.
Mr. Barton's older son, Gareth, was aiding in distributing flyers at the time and witnessed his father's arrest. When Mr. Barton was taken to jail, both his older son and his younger son, Matthias, were left abandoned on the Fairgrounds. Only through the aid of friends were the boys taken care of while Mr. Barton was in a holding cell.
Mr. Barton and other Libertarian candidates emphasize that this treatment of people whose views vary from your own, and the tendency to resort to force in any situation is one of the reasons that they are running for office as Libertarians. Increasingly, on our college campuses, in our schools, and on the media, dissenting views are ridiculed, ignored, and often completely silenced.
Mr. Barton had been at the State Fair since Wednesday, along with other Libertarian candidates and activists at the party booth. This is the first time the Libertarian Party has been able to have a booth at the annual event. Following his release, he returned to West River for other engagements and projects. He intends to maintain his campaign schedule despite the attack and charges. For more information contact: · James Christen, Huron area Libertarian coordinator, 352- 4559 · Bob Newland, SDLP ExComm, 255- 4032 · Nathan Barton, SDLP ExComm, 390-7255
Source
no subject
hmmm. I thought 'police' had a sort of unwritten policy that they weren't 'allowed' to hold other jobs down because often 'outside' work conflicts with their regular police job? I know there's no law against it (such would go against freedom of choice, not to mention opportunity to make a few extra bucks). I know here there's no laws against police having other part-time jobs outside the police force, but they are told firmly, if they do, then they will be 'out'. Conflict of interest, possibility of being associated with others who are criminal, even indirectly (working as a barperson for a casino chain for example - ethical considerations).
I looked up the web site (LP) and saw they are very pro-(hand)gun. This was a surprise. Freedom to protect oneself is where they're coming from, but the other side of the coin is freedom to get a gun and go and rob, kill someone when you think about it. Sort of a flawed logic when it comes to freedom to obtain weapons such of the handgun nature.
no subject
Libertarian Party
The two ruling parties have a pretty strong lock on power in the USA, with a history of making ballot access more difficult to obtain when other parties start getting a following etc. If they were in any other business than politics they'd get an anti-trust suit on 'em.
The Libertarians are pretty big for an non Republicrat party, their candidates often come in third and they have a few people in local offices. They're stronger in some states than others. I think the Libertarian Presidential candidate came in second in Alaska a few elections ago.
"hmmm. I thought 'police' had a sort of unwritten policy that they weren't 'allowed' to hold other jobs down because often 'outside' work conflicts with their regular police job?"
It's fairly common here in Louisiana (& other parts of USAia) for cops to be hired as "security" while off official duty.
Potential conflicts of interest? Absolutely. Lots.
"I looked up the web site (LP) and saw they are very pro-(hand)gun. This was a surprise. "
Well, the right to bear arms is in the USA Constitution, and is taken as an inherent right by many here.
"Freedom to protect oneself is where they're coming from, but the other side of the coin is freedom to get a gun and go and rob, kill someone when you think about it."
Uh, nope.
Your freedom stops where it harms others person or property.
Whether you believe in all of it or not, the Libertarian position is pretty consistant once you understand the premises.
The Libertarian Party goes for the private property branch of individual liberty.
The default is that the Government has no right to tell people what to do unless you endanger others. Owning a gun is like owning any other piece of private property; as long as you're not using it to harm or intimidate others, what you do with it is none of the Government's business.
my handgun is bigger than your handgun ;p
Just with the..
the right to bear arms is in the USA Constitution
Wasn't the intent of installing that in the constitution actually meaning 'the country' has the right to bear arms? As opposed to an 'individual' (per se)? In other words, 'America' giving itself the right to form an army, as all other countries have? Written at a time (1791) when the British (& others?) may still have been seen as remaining a military threat. Was it intended so that militias could form in order to come together as an army in the event of attack?
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I know some have said this and I tend to agree, where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms the intent is just that; people. That is 'people' as a group ie 'an army' - representative of country, state or territory, not 'necessarily' individuals.
If, taking that the interpretation of this part of the Constitution was intended for individuals to bear arms as well as a territory being able to form a militia, or just individuals having the right to bear arms full stop, then how could the separate states then turn around and start restricting 'the right to bear arms'? Such as the Brady law or even prohibit the purchase of certain types of firearms (The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). I mean, it says 'the right to bear arms' - it doesn't say what arms. Does this mean anything? Being so open ended, how can lawmakers draw the line? From pop-gun to handgun to machine gun to rocket launcher to nukes? Even biological and chemical weapons are still under 'arms'.
So, that would mean that the Constitution is open to interpretation since they can and do distinguish between handguns and machine guns and effect restrictive gun laws. Then, why can't they do that with handguns themselves? Once you start drawing lines as they've done, then that line can be simply pushed back or forward.
I know having an 'open' handgun policy doesn't work. Nothing wrong with sportshooters and the like of course but when it comes to every Tom, Dick & Harry walking down the street with a handgun it's a different matter. In the 'States, rate per capita is 8 times higher for violent crime (death, injury) than countries where handguns (non-sports use) are banned - for all the people, both the goodies and baddies.
no subject
After Perot showed how weak the Republican and Democratic parties grip on political power is, and demonstrated just how willingly Americans will clamor for ANY alternative that seems viable, I imagine that we'll continue to see 3rd parties quashed out of debates the national scene in general.
Witness Green Party candidate for president Ralph Nader not able to participate in nationally televised debates.
You don't need a permit, and you don't need to be invited to exercise a basic freedom. The political process in this country is a sham.
Oh, please.
Re: Oh, please.
I don't know if I'd want any one party (even one I agree with) in total control. Though if I were offered a chance to exchange the Republicans & Democrats for the Libertarians and the Greens as the leading parties, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
Now, THAT