It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[Almost there]

So, perhaps we might be better off if everyone has access to machine guns, grenade launchers and anti-talk weaponry. After all, if we need NO gun laws,

I have no problem with that.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Two ways. First, any taxpayer money spent takes away from the citizens. Taking away your money takes away freedom. Second, any laws attached to it will cause people to have to jump through legal hoops that didn't exist before. And those hoops are always "One size fits all".

The government also doesn't have the money. It's a little like a family that is broke and buried under a mound of debt wanting to spend more on lawn care when they can't even afford the electric bill.

Another way of expressing it is, Bribing the electorate with their own money.

Politicians sometimes remind me of teenage girls wanting to wear hoop earrings that are big enough for all their friends to jump through.

 

[LostMarbels]

Are you suggesting that the government has violated the 2nd Amendment by banning machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti-tank weaponry?

I hate to break it to ya, but we got em. There's a guy I know that legally owns 2, 20mm anti-tank guns, and a Ma Duce. And rounds for them. We were laughing over this whole Nov 4th thing.

 

[camille70]

No need to discuss gun control in this latest shooting. Church is the best place to get shot.

 

[Almost there]

I hate to break it to ya, but we got em. There's a guy I know that legally owns 2, 20mm anti-tank guns, and a Ma Duce. And rounds for them. We were laughing over this whole Nov 4th thing.

But oddly, I feel no less safe.

 

[mark46]

1) PLEASE, do us a favor and stop calling yourself a classical liberal. Few understand what you mean, and it is confusing.

2) ?????
I did NOT say that the majority of Americans think that government should have more of a role in he healthcare or make more healthcare decisions. I said

The VAST, VAST majority of Americans believe that "the public welfare" includes some role in providing access to healthcare, including mental healthcare.

I stand by this statement. Your point that there could be improvements (by selling across state lines) is likely supported by many, within the framework that the government has some role.

You have made the choice not to carry insurance. This is NOT equivalent to saying that government should have no role in healthcare, for example in providing support for hospitals, or the very poor).

Many take the same position as you do. I presume that if you need to pay $60K or so for hospital services in case of illness, that you will pay and not burden the public by not paying the hospitals and doctors. Depending on the outcome of the current debate, you may or may not get a federal tax deduction. Ditto if you or family needs to pay for long-rem care. For me, I make the choice to pay for Medicare B, D and for supplemental insurance. I have no problem with either of our choices.

I don't think it's "vast", much less, "vast, vast". In fact, I think a LOT of americans think the problem regarding health care is that the government got TOO involved. This is one reason there is a call for letting companies sell insurance across state lines. But I've been insurance free for almost four years now, saving well over $1,000 every month in premiums (I'm old) and getting health care out of pocket for very low cost.

That sounds more like a classical liberal viewpoint, i.g. our founding fathers.

 

[LostMarbels]

But oddly, I feel no less safe.

Well your not going to take a 6' long 40lbs gun that kicks like a runaway Dodge Ram, on a bank heist.

 

[mark46]

I In fact, I think a LOT of americans think the problem regarding health care is that the government got TOO involved. This is one reason there is a call for letting companies sell insurance across state lines. But I've been insurance free for almost four years now, saving well over $1,000 every month in premiums (I'm old) and getting health care out of pocket for very low cost. That sounds more like a classical liberal viewpoint, i.g. our founding fathers.

I agree with you position on selling across state lines. I would submit the vast majority of Americans support Medicaid and Medicare, and reject Republican efforts to reduce spending on Medicaid by $1T or more. Of course, everyone agrees that changes should be made, and that waste should be reduced.

 

[mark46]

I hate to break it to ya, but we got em. There's a guy I know that legally owns 2, 20mm anti-tank guns, and a Ma Duce. And rounds for them. We were laughing over this whole Nov 4th thing.

So, he should be arrested. What is your point?

 

[mark46]

I have no problem with that.

I understand your position. I just wanted everyone to understand. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[mark46]

Not allowing a 7 year old to fly a plane is a violation of her free speech. It is also a violation of her parent rights to raise her, especially if the plane were being flown over eerie own property and her flight was not affecting public air space.



I say this because there are those who would take this position.

An analogy might be about the 7 year old whose father wanted her to be a solo pilot, and thereby assert rights for freedom of transportation and association (or something like that).

She took off and tragically crashed.

One can be in favour of deregulation and freedom, without abolishing all boundaries.

 

[Almost there]

I understand your position. I just wanted everyone to understand. Thank you for clarifying.

Sure. I have lots of neighbors that have guns. I have for decades, both in the urban and suburban environments in the Seattle area and here at my farm in KY. I've never felt at risk from any of those guns. Same is true for the weapons you mentioned.

 

[mark46]

Perhaps, you should make your idea of government more clear.

What if ANYTHING do you believe government should be spending our money on?

Two ways. First, any taxpayer money spent takes away from the citizens. Taking away your money takes away freedom. Second, any laws attached to it will cause people to have to jump through legal hoops that didn't exist before. And those hoops are always "One size fits all".

The government also doesn't have the money. It's a little like a family that is broke and buried under a mound of debt wanting to spend more on lawn care when they can't even afford the electric bill.

 

[LostMarbels]

So, he should be arrested. What is your point?

My point is:

A. you're not gun enthusiasts, so you dont even know that full sized cannons, miniguns, .50 cals, anti-tank guns, flamethrowers, and even high caliber rifles are in some peoples collections.

B. The reason you don't know is because the responsible owners of such guns, aren't the type that shoot up churches. They're not in the news.

 

[Almost there]

Not allowing a 7 year old to fly a plane is a violation of her free speech. It is also a violation of her parent rights to raise her, especially if the plane were being flown over eerie own property and her flight was not affecting public air space.



I say this because there are those who would take this position.

I have a billionaire relative. He has a Cessna Citation 10 passenger jet and a 2 passenger cub. He has let his grandchildren fly the cub. One was able to land it (when he was 8), though he was quite a bit older before he was allowed to solo. He has a hired pilot crew to fly the jet.

 

[Almost there]

Perhaps, you should make your idea of government more clear.

What if ANYTHING do you believe government should be spending our money on?

Protecting our borders and protecting us from each other. This includes protecting the states from each other and protecting the citizens when a "perp" leaves the juridiction of your state to prevent capture.

 

[Almost there]

My point is:

A. you're not gun enthusiasts, so you dont even know that full sized cannons, miniguns, .50 cals, anti-tank guns, flamethrowers, and even high caliber rifles are in some peoples collections.

B. The reason you don't know is because the responsible owners of such guns, aren't the type that shoot up churches. They're not in the news.

What is kind of interesting is that the LESS dangerous the weapon is, the more likely you are to use it irresponsibly. Generally speaking, the higher the risk of a bad outcome, the greater the natural tendency to be responsible. It's just human nature. Thank God!

 

[Almost there]

I agree with you position on selling across state lines. I would submit the vast majority of Americans support Medicaid and Medicare, and reject Republican efforts to reduce spending on Medicaid by $1T or more. Of course, everyone agrees that changes should be made, and that waste should be reduced.

I support medicare only in the same way I support SS. People who use it paid into it. If I were elected president I'd do everything I could to abolish medicaid, section 8 housing and any other FedGov aid to individual citizens. The states can take care of it as they see fit.

I'd also do all I could to phase out medicare and SS.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No need to discuss gun control in this latest shooting. Church is the best place to get shot.

Oh, well then.

 

[Aldebaran]

What is kind of interesting is that the LESS dangerous the weapon is, the more likely you are to use it irresponsibly. Generally speaking, the higher the risk of a bad outcome, the greater the natural tendency to be responsible. It's just human nature. Thank God!

It's why the lowly .22LR has been more responsible for deaths than larger guns.

 

[mark46]

Please look up "disingenuous" in the dictionary.

NO ONE is discussing non-functional weapons held by collectors. If those folks have ILLEGAL guns, then they should be arrested. I thought that I was clear.

My point is:

A. you're not gun enthusiasts, so you dont even know that full sized cannons, miniguns, .50 cals, anti-tank guns, flamethrowers, and even high caliber rifles are in some peoples collections.

B. The reason you don't know is because the responsible owners of such guns, aren't the type that shoot up churches. They're not in the news.