Who here is afraid to live unarmed?

The Nazis weren't rightists and they disarmed the Jews.

 

What demographics? If your society is as broken and dysfunctional as America's appears to be, then I suggest your problems go a lot deeper than mere demographics.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you serious? Are you the only person on the planet who doesn't recognise that fascism is a far-right ideology? Oh, and the Nazis disarmed everyone who wasn't a nice, clean-cut Aryan, not just Jews. For the rest much stricter gun control measures, including a ban on handgun ownership, was the order of the day for the 1938 Firearms Act.

 

There has been and there is an antieuropean sentiment in europe, all expressed by far right parties, Marine le Pen and hers Front Nationale is one of these major parties. Not sure what happens if these people all were armed and had your mentality. Prolly our govs would do as Obama tries to do, disarming his own people for the sake of order, telling all those lies you neocons despise so much, but in fact he is forced to lie to you for your own good.

 

What is more dangerous, knowing what is best for others or a gun?

 

Forced to lie to the people for their own good??? Oh yeah, you serfs on that side of the world never change but that sounded just a little too Soviet.
Look if you think you need to disarm your neighbors because you know dominance is what's best for them just admit it and move on ok comrade.

 

Not at all. I'm forced to live unarmed. Sure, I'd feel more secure having the ability to fire a projectile at high speed, but I'm not constantly fretting. Just means if an intruder breaks in I'll have to defecate myself and follow his every instruction until 20 minutes when later the police arrive - as per their advice.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ian_gag_rules_and_the_cdc_aca_and_states.html

 

I would echo the OP 100%.

I am not afraid to go unarmed. I do not own a home, have a family, or live in the disastor zone (Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes). I could understand why those who live in thos regions who have homes and families would arm themselves. My two cents.

 

The issue here is that doctors now have to report everything they do to government because of Obamacare.

 

You're not trying to take people's guns even if you choose not to have one. I 100% respect your opinion.

 

That's good. It's not a doctors business to mandate or become informants on their patients with the Gestapo.
Why should someone seeking treatment for medical reasons be visited by jackboot thugs because the doctor is antigun?
I do not intrude on my doctors personal life so I expect the same in return. That is fair and logical. Anything else is authoritarian.

 

Actually the issue is the government has forced doctors to became paid informants in matters which have nothing to do with them.
Personally I would rather die from lack of healthcare than submit to an unwarranted government interrogation.

Do HIV patients get their doors kicked open if they tell their doctor they're having random sex? I'll bet the answer is no. Their privacy is paramount. Gun owners will be expected to build and drag their own crucifix tho.
It's not a public safety issue. It's a public flogging.

 

Yep . . . good ol' Slate E-zine the leftwing liberal rag that has for forever and a day paid part of John Dickerson's salary and Dickerson is the Political Director of CBS News. Nothing like the supposedly neutral broadcast network, CBS, being fair and balanced, eh?

But the ideologically sleazy incestuous connection between leftwing 'rags' aside that M.D. was in the wrong because he should not have asked about guns. Had he simply put his anti-gun ideology aside he could still have assuaged his 'conscience' by pointing out that new parents should be aware of safety concerns involving swimming pools and trampolines and guns . . . and then leave it at that. But no . . . he wanted to preach and possibly sneer, and definitely prejudge that anyone owning a gun MUST be irresponsible and a potential child abuser. So good on the state for taking care of that leftwing bit of ideological harassment.

 

I have a Carry Permit and never actually carry. I guess that answers the question.

 

Curious: In a hypothetical USA, where all guns have been eliminated from public hands, what percentage of those 10,000 deaths would have been avoided, in your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

I bet you have a 10 year old condom in your wallet too, huh?

 

I don't carry those, either!

 

They make condoms for 10 year old boys??

 

Every gov lies to people, that's the basics of politics. There are times of crisis when leaders are forced to lie more than usual to keep things ongoing, now we are in those times. Obama lies to you, you know it but can't do anything. Progressism is good, we need a new world order and more power to the state, more connection between people and the state. You cons on the opposite want the state to leave people alone and mind it's own businness, that's no longer a possible option, Progressism cannot be stopped and you know it, Obama will keep lying but you'll do anything nonetheless because you have anything better to counteroffer.

 

Why do you claim we need a new world order and more power to the state, along with "more connection between people and the state"? In my eyes the state has an intimate knowledge of each of us already via their ability to track your every financial move, communication, internet activity, medical issues (electronic medical records mandated by law), registration of vehicles, fingerprints for many on file, DNA for many on file (all military and ex-military since the 1990s), etc. They're more connected to me than is even comfortable so what exactly do we need a better connection for?

 

You can probably figure that out, find out who died in gun accidents in their own home, with weapons that they or their family owned or accidents with guns of acquantances.

 

Just out of curiosity, but why do you have a permit then?

 

I got it right about the same time I got the gun. There may be a time I would want to carry, so I figured it's best to have it. Like insurance. I've never used my home owner's insurance, either. But I have it just the same. Where I live the chances of needing a gun for anything don't warrant the hassle of carrying one around. And when I head downtown I don't typically go where it might be needed.

 

Because until now all we managed to do was to create wealth inequality and disproportionally rich groups/people. The state should have the power to force wealth redistribution. See what happens these days? It appears some groups of enormously rich people managed to generate a crisis because of their greed. If we don't want socio economical crisis anymore there must be a mechanism which subtracts excess of wealth from those who have too much, regularly plaining the otherwise huge discrepancies.

We need also to unite people over the world to realize someday a world's federation with laws and valours in common. Do you like the actual geopolitical situation of the world, with nuclear armed superpowers playing cold war? I think not.

 

A lot of people get a permit so they can take it in their car. They have no intention of carrying on their person wherever they go, but it's enough for them to know it's in the glove box if they ever need it.

 

Your trust of government to both decide how much you should have and from whom they should take it is bewildering. We already have a progressive tax system where I pay significantly more in taxes than most people, but I would find it really insulting, and disincentivizing, to think that if I were to have more than others, someone on the side of government could just decide to take it because others are entitled to it via forced redistribution (beyond just taxation). Nobody would want to work or achieve in a society where their contribution is so meaningless, such as a deeply educated person who aspires to something like being a surgeon or scientist having their hard work mean nothing so that the person who only aspires to collecting trash or making homemade buttons can be equal for the little effort they have to employ.

I don't have the answers to the problem of inequality, but a global government and forced redistribution to create a false equality is certainly not something I'd be signing up for. Wars have been taking place as long as man has lived and I'd take a cold war standoff with nuclear missiles over the system you described any day of the week. I shiver at the thought of who would decide what "excess wealth" means since wealth is relative.