[Judge Rage]

Politics

Longcross releases statement regarding party disagreements

TRUENORTH, ID - Early this morning in a phone call to The Rockfordian, Alexander Longcross of the Idaho Liberal Party spoke on speculation about disagreements among his party.

In his Lieutenant Gubernatorial Candidacy form, official Liberal Lieutenant Governor Candidate, Jeff Ford (@Jeff Ford), said that he believes the vetting system should be strengthened, and said that while he believes "greater regulation is required for a Homeland Security/Public Safety concern", regulating gun culture would be "damaging" to the Second Ammendment.

This does stand somewhat in opposition to the official Liberal Party position on Gun Control, which does not mention anything about strengthening regulations.


Replying to these concerns, Liberal Party Chairman & President, Alexander Longcross (@Judge Rage), had this to say;

"I want to be very clear on this. My party leadership, myself, Vice President Ford and our party board, are all in agreement with each other. What Ford said was not a violation of the party line - I think any sane and reasonable person would agree that there needs to be some regulation when it comes to concealed carry - that is where our status as a shall-issue state comes in. We shall issue you a concealed carry permit if there is no reason not to. We have been clear on our candidacy forms, and on our party website, that we aim to maintain our status as a shall-issue state, and we intend to strengthen open carry laws."

Longcross continued to say,

"Our position on gun control is clear, we do not want to disarm the populace, unlike the National Socialists or the Union of Fascists, who aim to follow the ideals of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, we do not want to put regulation on such trivial things as how many rounds of ammunition you can carry, unlike Labour candidate Lou Stenhouse, and we do not want to "call for greater enforcement of gun laws", unlike Conservative candidate Thomas Kirkman." 

It is clear that Longcross's attack comes ahead of tonight's Gubernatorial debate, where he can expect a grilling from his Conservative rivals on his party's alleged disagreements. 


When reached by The Rockfordian for comment, Mr Ford himself had this to say;

"[Conservative Lt. Gubernatorial Candidate] Cretier can't quite seem to grasp the meaning of regulation. I want to ensure guns are in the hands of those who only want to use them for valid purposes. I want to stop those who mean only to do malice with these weapons. Conservatives are using our constitution as a political argument. How do you think our Founding Fathers would feel about that?"

Liberal Party Director of Communications and Associate Justice Jacob Barley (@JakeCake) confirmed that this comment is in compliance with the party line. 

As the Liberals hit out at their rivals in a series of vicious attacks ahead of tonight's debate, we can only see where this will go.

GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE - Tonight at 8pm UTC (7pm BST) at Weyland-Yutani's Headquarters on Railway Avenue North, which has been kindly lent to EBC for tonight's debate. 

---

Published: 09 July, 2019
Submitted by: Samantha Coldsmith

[Judge Rage]

The Rockfordian Politics is brought to you by the EvoCity News Corporation, a subsidiary of the Evo Broadcasting Corporation.

[Lord Octagon]

[Judge Rage]

[Lord Octagon]

[Jeff Ford]

[Lord Octagon]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hE-naA8mC8UaRu0sXtHlR8f852PxHFM3PB0-O4WzqLk/edit?usp=sharing Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hE-n...sp=sharing Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

Idaho Conservative Platform

ARTICLE XVI. LAW AND ORDER WITH JUSTICE 

Section 1. Gun Rights 

A. We support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article one section eleven of the Idaho State Constitution. 
B. We commend the efforts of organizations to preserve and foster that right, including Right-to-Carry laws. 
C. We believe the federal government should not regulate intrastate ammunition and firearms sales.
D. We believe in the protection of the American firearms industry against harassing lawsuits that blame them for the acts of criminals. 
E. We call for more enforcement of current laws against violent criminals, not more “gun control” aimed at law-abiding citizens. 
F. We strongly oppose the United States entering into any international agreements or treaties which would undermine, limit or interfere with the individual right to own and bear arms and ammunition. 
G. We find that the Congress violated the 2nd amendment’s protections in the 1986 Firearms’ Owners Protection H. Act when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) interpreted the Hughes Amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. 

[Hungames]

And in what conceivable way do you intend to place greater regulations on criminals that do not impact the law-abiding civilian populace? The very nature of gun-control regulation is that it targets EVERYONE, regardless of criminal status. You can't institute stronger background checks without imposing the same rules on everybody. The purpose of a background check is to determine criminal status and other extenuating factors that prevent buying a firearm. How would a system be able to only target criminals, without conducting a background check to the background check? 

And why are you giving out guns left, right, and 'centre'? You claim to want to strengthen regulation in your "On the Issues" statement (" I personally believe that the vetting system should be strengthened, so that weapons do not get in the hands of those who wish to do harm."). Wouldn't giving out guns "left, right, and centre" be a violation of the platform you run on?

And furthermore, how are you to determine which people want to "do harm to your friends, family, etc."? Wouldn't that require an extensive background check that includes mental health status, questioning those around the applicant, etc.? Soon enough it's going to be easier to get a high-security clearance than it is to get a gun. And by the way, expanding background checks means more regulation. 

Illogical bullshit like this makes me wanna vote for the fascists.

Regards,
A Happy Conservative

This message is not endorsed or created by the Conservative Party.

[Judge Rage]

And in what conceivable way do you intend to place greater regulations on criminals that do not impact the law-abiding civilian populace? The very nature of gun-control regulation is that it targets EVERYONE, regardless of criminal status. You can't institute stronger background checks without imposing the same rules on everybody. The purpose of a background check is to determine criminal status and other extenuating factors that prevent buying a firearm. How would a system be able to only target criminals, without conducting a background check to the background check? 

And why are you giving out guns left, right, and 'centre'? You claim to want to strengthen regulation in your "On the Issues" statement (" I personally believe that the vetting system should be strengthened, so that weapons do not get in the hands of those who wish to do harm."). Wouldn't giving out guns "left, right, and centre" be a violation of the platform you run on?

And furthermore, how are you to determine which people want to "do harm to your friends, family, etc."? Wouldn't that require an extensive background check that includes mental health status, questioning those around the applicant, etc.? Soon enough it's going to be easier to get a high-security clearance than it is to get a gun. And by the way, expanding background checks means more regulation. 

Illogical bullshit like this makes me wanna vote for the fascists.

Regards,
A Happy Conservative

This message is not endorsed or created by the Conservative Party.

Let's be clear on one thing.

We are talking about concealed carry weapon permits here, nothing more, nothing less. 

We care about strengthening open carry laws, and ensuring that this vital right is protected for all to enjoy. 

Now, I understand the concerns about Liberal gun control policy, but at the end of the day what you should be worrying about is the gun control policy of the National Socialist Party of Idaho and Idaho Union Of Fascists who openly seek to disarm the populace and take your guns away "for the greater good". You might think that this is not a concern, but at last released polls the Nazis were polling second to the Liberals, and yesterday they were polling at first ahead of the Liberals.

The Nazis and Fascists want to take away your guns. They openly admit this in their statements and in last night's debate. Notwithstanding this, the Labour Party also wants to increase regulation on firearms, completely banning handguns and concealed carry, and allowing those open carrying rifles to only carry 200 rounds of ammunition, aggressively stating "WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE [for 200 rounds of ammunition]" in last night's debate.

Liberals stand to protect your Second Ammendment.

Vote Liberal.