Warren Severin for U.S. Congress in District 5, Arizona

The Severin Option

Search

Google


WWW
Severin4Congress

Latest news

October - If my website doesn't look much different from two years ago, it's because my positions haven't changed much since two years ago. Nobody can call me a 'flip-flopper'. Be that as it may. Once again, I have essentially nil probability of winning. My purpose in running is to steer discussion to important topics and keep my opponents honest (if that's possible...). So far I've engaged Harry and Dave in a couple of debates and the differences are about what you'd expect. Next week, 10/22, will be a couple of televised debates, on channel 8 (Horizon) and on Scottsdale cable which often goes to CSPAN.

Candidate Sites

I will post links to other Libertarian candidates as their website addresses become available.

Self defense ...

GunsThe primary uses of guns are recreation and self-defense. Relatively few people have any issues with guns used for the recreational purposes of target shooting and hunting.

More people seem to have issues with guns used for self-defense.

Every living thing on this planet is born with a natural right to defend itself. Ultimately your well-being is up to you, not your local police. You are going to be the first person on the scene of a crime directed at you or someone close by; not the police. In a case of violent crime against you, the police are for cordoning off the crime scene with yellow plastic tape.

A common scenario: It's late evening, you and your spouse just had dinner at a restaurant and you're walking back to your car. You become aware of three men walking directly at you from three directions. Their intent is obvious. Your choices:
1- Take a pistol out of your pocket or purse and holler "I HAVE AGUN! BACK OFF!!!"
2- Take a cell phone out of your pocket or purse and holler "I HAVE A CELL PHONE. PLEASE WAIT WHILE I CALL 911. OH, AND WILL YOU PLEASE WAIT 10 MINUTES UNTIL THE POLICE GET HERE?"

Another common scenario: A woman is jogging in a park. A man jumps from the bushes ahead of her. She has a pretty good idea what he wants to do. Her choices:
1- Take a pistol from her fanny pack and holler "I HAVE A GUN! BACK OFF!!!"
2- Take a cell phone from her fanny pack and holler "I HAVE A CELL PHONE. PLEASE DON'T RAPE ME UNTIL I'VE CALLED 911. OH, AND WOULD YOU PLEASE WAIT ANOTHER HALF HOUR UNTIL THE POLICE GET HERE?"

We could walk through numerous other scenarios of car-jackings, muggings, home invasions and the like. I hope you got my point.

Before initiating an attack, those hypothetical criminals don't know if you're armed or not - unless you live someplace where you're not allowed to protect yourself. They're less likely to attack if you might be able to defend yourself. Even if you choose not to provide for your own protection, the fact that you live someplace where some people are armed and you might be armed works in your favor.

Some people argue that elimination of personal ownership of guns will reduce crime. The available data does not support this claim; infact, the data refutes it. In every major metropolitan area where personal gun ownership has been restricted the rate of violent crime has increased. (Sources on request) The frequently heard saying that 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' turns out to be true. Just the possibility of credible defense gives criminals pause.

I support the natural, birth-right of people to defend themselves, including the use of guns when necessary. I support the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees that government cannot take that right away.

Abortion ...

pro-choice pro-lifeThe one thing I'm sure of about the abortion issue is that people are pro-choice or pro-life based on personal, often religious beliefs. That makes for heated debate. The big question in my mind is, how much right do I have to use the government to impose my beliefs on you?

I am personally, as a matter of belief , pro-life. I don't know what an embryo feels or doesn't feel at what point in development; I don't know when a fetus or newborn becomes self- aware; and I don't know when human life begins. I do know that there are long lines of potentially excellent parents waiting for babies to adopt. So I believe ,on balance, that it is preferable in most cases to have a child and give it up for adoption than to abort the embryo. That is my opinion.

That said, I've watched women that I know have to make this decision. I know that it is the most difficult, heart- bending decision a woman can make in her life. I express my beliefs and lend an opinion. Women get beliefs and opinions from family, friends, doctors and clergy. In the end, the women make the decision. I do not believe that I have any moral right to impose my beliefs by any means, including using the government.

One of the rules I live by: I have my beliefs and you have yours. My beliefs do not trump yours, and yours do not trump mine. I will not use the government to impose my beliefs on you if you will not use the government to impose your beliefs on me.

Gay Marriage ...

This is another issue where people come at it mostly from personal and religious belief . Personally, I'm straight. I have a wife, three kids, two grandkids, and that's the way I am. I know several gay couples, of both sexes. Some are good friends. As long as they're happy, I'm happy.

Marriage is a public and private bond and contract between two people. It is sanctified by friends, family and usually clergy. Marriage is quite commonly called "holy matrimony". It is a marriage of spirits. It's never called "government matrimony".

The government gets its nose into the personal business of marriage because it offers some benefits to spouses who are married according to state and federal law. If it weren't for those benefits there would be no issue. But, we have social security benefits to worry about, special IRS rules and inheritance laws. So the government wants to decide who is "officially" married.

The "official-ness" of a marriage is created by the bond and contract between the parties. If the contract is valid our government should recognize it in the same way it recognizes other contracts. Anyone presenting a contract of marriage or proof of any sort, from a religious organization or their own contract should be considered married for government purposes.