RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment.

RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bestbabync [sm=sm.gif]like i said whateva[:'(] it matters not my link or source, in your eyes it is always bad, uneducated, simpleminded or just plain wrong. no matter, i am always in error. Don't recall saying anything about you, just your link.

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:37:27 PM)
This is a capitalist nation, or at least for the time being. Anybody should have the right to earn as much as they possibly can, without the government deciding what is too much. As far as minimum wage, the whole point to that is, if you do not find your job and pay acceptable, you can get a second job, get a better job, or get some education or training to get a better job. My God, is this country getting so weak minded that even rational thought is out the door now? I have worked my butt off the last few years. I did it because I wanted to make something of myself, and that I did not feel that making $15,000 a year was good enough. I have never, and will never, extend my hand and wait for the IRS to drop me a check, that they took from someone who worked hard, took risks in business, and succeeded. Here's what's in store if Obama gets what he wants. One, he will raise capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and taxes on the rich. Two, despite what he says, the middle class will get hit with higher taxes too. All you have to do is look to Clinton to see that. What will happen then?? First off, higher Cap. Gains will force money overseas, in search of investments with less punitive taxes. Its just that simple. Corporations will shutter plants and move them overseas, especially for items meant for the export market. Every American will pay this higher Corp. tax when they buy things here. Corporations pay the taxes, but like any expense they incur, it is passed on to us. Higher Corp. taxes will also make goods exported more expensive relative to foreign goods, which will reduce sales, and cause further plant closings and layoffs. Everyone keeps throwing Exxon out there and saying "see, look how greedy they are", but why pile on any American company, when like in the case of Exxon, they employ over 80,000 people. My last point here is, when the Great Depression was just a recession, the government did two things...raise taxes, and get more protective with trade....and what happened??....The Great Depression. What has Obama advocated?? Higher taxes and trade protections. Those hear can say that only those making more than $250,000 will pay more, BUT...in last night's infomercial, he lowered that amount to $200,000. Biden said $150,000 at a rally the other day, and I bet in the first 6 months of an Obama administration, it will be down to $50,000, and everyone else will get hammered. I personally believe that he really only cares for those making very little, or those who do not wish to work at all. In the end, those two groups will get huge handouts, while the rest of us foot the bill.

rulemylife -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor You are correct. If you ban guns, only the law abiding will turn them in. The criminals do not care about laws anyway, so why would they mind breaking one more? They did gun bans in England and Australia. In both cases, immediately following, crime numbers went up. The criminals now felt less concerned for their safety and victimize people at will. In a polar opposite response, years ago when Florida enacted concealed carry laws, crime fell. Funny how that works huh? So, let me ask, does the United States have a lower murder rate or less deaths per capita caused by guns than England or Australia? How about a lower overall crime rate? Funny how that works, huh?

Moloch -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:44:30 PM)
Obama is openly anti-gun, McCain is more sneaky about it. Just for the Record 2nd amendment was written to defend ourselves from foreign and our own governments. That means if US infantry carries M16's we should be able to legally own them too.

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:46:40 PM)
Actually, I am a ten year member of the NRA and proud of that. In that time, I have seen the NRA endorse candidates based on their record. In races where both people have equally positive gun records, they remain neutral. Just because most of the staunchest friends of gun rights, doesn't mean that they only blindly go with the right leaner. An example in my state, Virginia...The NRA neither endorses Gilmore nor Warner for US Senate. Both are given "A" ratings. If they were so right wing, why would they have done that??

bestbabync -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor You are correct. If you ban guns, only the law abiding will turn them in. The criminals do not care about laws anyway, so why would they mind breaking one more? They did gun bans in England and Australia. In both cases, immediately following, crime numbers went up. The criminals now felt less concerned for their safety and victimize people at will. In a polar opposite response, years ago when Florida enacted concealed carry laws, crime fell. Funny how that works huh? So, let me ask, does the United States have a lower murder rate or less deaths per capita caused by guns than England or Australia? How about a lower overall crime rate? Funny how that works, huh? who cares about the other countries crime/murder rate! what does that have to do with US citizens 2nd amendment right?

Angam85 -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:51:45 PM)
Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection. Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ? Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself. There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe. Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ?

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:52:52 PM)
I did not support any bailouts of businesses that failed. Thats the capitalist way...you can succeed, or you can fail. What makes those bailouts NOT socialism is the fact that this money is not just a handout that doesn't get paid back. This money will have to be paid back, and with interest. When Obama gives lower income people money with the condition that it is to be paid back, with interest, I will quit calling that socialism. Until then, I stand pat.

bestbabync -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 8:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Angam85 Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection. Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ? Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself. There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe. Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ? oh my God.....did you guys just land!!![sm=abducted.gif] people are loosing jobs at record numbers! crime rates will go up as a result of this recession. the police cannot be everywhere. as for the government....well damn it could self destruct any day then where would we be![sm=anger.gif]

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:00:00 PM)
If you don't feel that having a gun in your home, or at least, the possibility that you are an armed homeonwer isn't a deterrent to criminals, then maybe you would want to put a huge sign in your yard that proclaims that you are a gun free home. The fact that we are largeras a nation and have a bigger issue with drugs and gangs here, skews those numbers, but no matter what the differences are, if you ban guns here, crime WILL increase, just as it did in those two countries. It really doesn't matter which country has what rate versus another. The indisputable fact is, guns were banned in those two countries, and crime rose.

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:02:43 PM)
For any citizen to legally own an M16, one must apply to the ATF and once passed, buy an expensive tax stamp to allow a full automatic gun to be possesed. 99% of the assault rifle classed guns in the hands of civilians are semi-automatic only. The tax stamp generally costs more than the gun itself, so therefore, its just not worth it to most people.

Moloch -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:05:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Angam85 Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection. Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ? Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself. There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe. Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ? Supreme Court already ruled that cops don't have to protect me. In matters when seconds can decided life and death the cops are minutes away. Im not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that there are not bad or evil people out there.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JumpingJax quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS Don't you find it interesting that the same people who are against setting a minimum wage are in favor or not having an upper limit on how much one can earn? It is OK to pay a person a wage that they can starve to death slowly on but making more money than one could spend if a hundred lifetimes is considered a worthy goal. Hatred of welfare for the poor is compensated for by love of welfare for the rich. H. Do you ever consider that the more people are payed the more products cost? High mininum wages help raise inflation and reduce the number of jobs out there, and actually believe it or not lowers the actually value of the dollar and therefore the wages of most everyone. Do you ever consider that the less people are paid the fewer products are sold? Minimum wages increases have had no correlatable effect on either inflation or employment. Did you ever stop to consider that the reason the US has become the economic powerhouse that it has is because there has been (until this idiotic trickle-down "Voodoo" economics bullshit) a huge middle class which made liveable wages that had enough left over after paying for necessities to buy vacations and sporting goods and entertainment and college educations? By your logic, if wages were reduced to zero, then goods and services would be affordable to everyone, there would be deflation, and manufacturers would not be able to keep up with demand because there wouldn't be enough workers to hire? You might want to rethink your economics theories (which have been debunked so many times before....)

BitaTruble -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Angam85 Surely the most unfortunate thing is that people feel the need to own a gun for protection. Does this not indicate a basic lack of faith in the ability of the national and local police authorities to protect the people ? Surely this need for gun owning is a sympton of a much more deep seated problem, rather than the problem itself. There are many civilised countries in the world where people simply do not feel a need to own a gun in order to be safe. Perhaps, as a nation, the USA still has something to learn about the role of government as an effective protector of the people ? It has nothing to do with a lack of faith and everything to do with personal responsibility and accountability. What some many view as weakness, many of us view as strength and our Constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from tyranny. It is the way of things in the good old US of A. The role of government to protect the people is all well and good .. the role of guns is to protect the people from the government .. just in case.

Joenextdoor -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:07:39 PM)
As effective as your local police might be, nothing will stop an armed intruder quicker than a shot to the head. If I was unarmed and heard someone breaking in, I would have to get to the phone, dial 911, wait for the dispatcher to answer, go through the whole speel of name, address, and problem, then, in my county, wait an average of 20 minutes for the police to respond. By that time, my family or myself could be dead, and the bad guys already gone with whatever they came for. In a perfect world, gunswould not be needed. We do not, and will not ever, live in that world.

HunterS -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:08:33 PM)
quote: ante quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor This is a capitalist nation, I looked in the constitution and could not find that part perhaps you could help me find it? or at least for the time being. Anybody should have the right to earn as much as they possibly can, without the government deciding what is too much. Even if they break the law in doing so? As far as minimum wage, the whole point to that is, if you do not find your job and pay acceptable, you can get a second job, get a better job, or get some education or training to get a better job. You appear to be saying that ignorant people deserve less than educated people. My God, is this country getting so weak minded that even rational thought is out the door now? Your posts do seem to confirm that position. I have worked my butt off the last few years. I did it because I wanted to make something of myself, and that I did not feel that making $15,000 a year was good enough. I have never, and will never, extend my hand and wait for the IRS to drop me a check, Please have the IRS foreward your refund cheque to me. that they took from someone who worked hard, took risks in business, and succeeded. Do you mean folks like Bear Stearns,AIG,Bank of Amerika,ADM and Exxon? Here's what's in store if Obama gets what he wants. One, he will raise capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, and taxes on the rich. Do you think the rich should be exempt from taxes? Why is capital gains income taxed at a lower rate than labor income? Could it be because the rich have significant capital gains income and the masses do not? Two, despite what he says, the middle class will get hit with higher taxes too. All you have to do is look to Clinton to see that. Isn't he the one who left us with the surplus that bush&co have squandered? What will happen then?? First off, higher Cap. Gains will force money overseas, in search of investments with less punitive taxes. If you are an U.S. citizen you are liable for taxes on your income no mater which country it is from. Its just that simple. Corporations will shutter plants and move them overseas, especially for items meant for the export market. Good...once those deadbeat asswipes are out of my country the happier I will be. Every American will pay this higher Corp. tax when they buy things here. Corporations pay the taxes, but like any expense they incur, it is passed on to us. Higher Corp. taxes will also make goods exported more expensive relative to foreign goods, which will reduce sales, and cause further plant closings and layoffs. And the sky will fall also??? Everyone keeps throwing Exxon out there and saying "see, look how greedy they are", but why pile on any American company, when like in the case of Exxon, they employ over 80,000 people. What you are trying to say here is that Exxon has 80,000 people making money for the corporation. If that entity falls it will be replaced by another. My last point here is, when the Great Depression was just a recession, the government did two things...raise taxes, and get more protective with trade....and what happened??....The Great Depression. You might just want to rethink the above statement since it is not borne out by the historical facts. Remember "google" can be your friend. What has Obama advocated?? Higher taxes and trade protections. That makes sense to most people with a three digit IQ. Those hear can say that only those making more than $250,000 will pay more, BUT...in last night's infomercial, he lowered that amount to $200,000. Biden said $150,000 at a rally the other day, and I bet in the first 6 months of an Obama administration, it will be down to $50,000, and everyone else will get hammered. Since those making $50,000 a year can barely make their house payment it surely is not logical that they would have any money to pay increased taxes...your logic seems at odds with your premise....If he says he is going to raise taxes on the rich, which you seem to fear...why are you now saying that he will raise taxes on the not rich? I personally believe that he really only cares for those making very little, or those who do not wish to work at all. In the end, those two groups will get huge handouts, while the rest of us foot the bill. So you don't mind the 700 billion dollar handout to the richest people in this country. You don't mind the 200 billion dollar give away to Haliburton for the fiasco in the "sandbox"? ...BUT...you are against some "wellfare momma" having a color tv or a cell phone... I want to thank you for a clear and lucid exposition of your position. H.

bestbabync -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:09:19 PM)
and the government is not exactly our best buddy right now.

rulemylife -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:13:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor If you don't feel that having a gun in your home, or at least, the possibility that you are an armed homeonwer isn't a deterrent to criminals, then maybe you would want to put a huge sign in your yard that proclaims that you are a gun free home. The fact that we are largeras a nation and have a bigger issue with drugs and gangs here, skews those numbers, but no matter what the differences are, if you ban guns here, crime WILL increase, just as it did in those two countries. It really doesn't matter which country has what rate versus another. The indisputable fact is, guns were banned in those two countries, and crime rose. I see. So when the statistics support your point of view then they are indisputable. When they are contrary to your point of view they are skewed. Funny how that works. By the way, I do own guns. For hunting. Not because I believe that there are gangs of drug-crazed criminals just waiting for me to get rid of them so they can pounce on my defenseless gun-free home.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor I did not support any bailouts of businesses that failed. Thats the capitalist way...you can succeed, or you can fail. What makes those bailouts NOT socialism is the fact that this money is not just a handout that doesn't get paid back. This money will have to be paid back, and with interest. When Obama gives lower income people money with the condition that it is to be paid back, with interest, I will quit calling that socialism. Until then, I stand pat. You know that this bailout is non-recourse, right? I'll also say that you don't have any idea as to what Socialism is. You're just parroting the same old BS that is being pumped out by the truckload by the Hannitys and Rushes of the nation.

Moloch -> RE: This election and the 2nd Amendment. (10/30/2008 9:19:01 PM)
Taxing the rich because they are rich, is like using Africans as salves on plantations because they could do the work of 3 white slaves. They are rich they don't need more money, they are black they dont need to be treated like human beings. US citizens liable for taxes? A Corporate entity is not a US citizen. Go back to reading the Communist Manifesto, this is a discussion about the right to bear arms.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875