Earlier I wrote, "For some people there are only two choices, totalitarian control over every facet of our lives or anarchy. You have chosen totalitarian control and then blamed the victims of the control for the catastrophe caused by government control. This shows me that you have the heart of a tyrant." So you are for continuing unconstitutional practices because we are already doing them? Interesting. How would you have ended slavery? Slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years before we abolished it. Funding agencies that should not exist if we were following our Constitution is just one more step in abolishing involuntary servitude. No real harm will come from you if we remove your chains.
For the discerning I was insisting that government actions are the source of this specific gun violence problem. The young black men who were deprived of their fathers as they grew up are the victims in this tragedy. I am for eliminating the cause of the problem. You are stuck on the victims' skin color. So yes, you are the one stuck on race. If you are a hammer every problem looks like a nail. If you are a racist every problem looks like racism.
Earlier I wrote, "So who called disabled veterans freeloaders? Let's start here." You should be embarrassed for yourself. Romney was standing for taking care of disabled veterans. “Given the needs of our veterans, how in the world, as commander-in-chief, you could stand by as we shrink our military commitment financially is something that I don’t understand, and I will reverse it,” Romney said. Once again, who called disabled veterans freeloaders? You will have to make a better case. You should just admit that you have nothing. He was clearly speaking to veterans and promised that he would not cut them. You are blowing smoke. Intentionally. You are bearing false witness. If you are Christian this is a massive sin. If you are not it simply shows that you cannot be trusted in small things or large. When the Left wants to make military spending seem bigger than it is they, and you, include every dime that is spent on military operations, equipment, families, and veterans. You know this is true. So which is it? When I heard Romney say that 47% would vote for Obama no matter what I did not hear him say that disabled veterans were freeloaders. You have quite the imagination. Those comments were a turning point for me. Before I heard I did not support him. Afterwards I did. He was right in his approach as far as that issue goes. About half of you vote for Santa Claus. Truth, honesty and hard work are not in your vocabulary. You have failed to make your case.
Earlier you wrote some melodramatic claptrap that any teenager would have the sense to ignore. Do you realize that in 1776 the American population was about the size of San Diego county? http://norberthaupt.com/2011/01/16/u-s-population-in-1776-and-1790/ Do you realize that our economy has grown just a little since then? Agencies whose purpose is to ensure mass-produced foods and medications are not toxic, that our water is of a standard fit for consumption, that our kids get a decent education... These are the "evil overlords" you need guns to protect yourself from? BTW, you made mention of how long slavery was an accepted (by some) practice before it was (forcefully) abolished... What does that have to do with anything? - - - Updated - - - But you're the one who keeps insisting it's BLACK kids from broken homes that are the sole problem... Don't you realize white people (and asians, and hispanics) get divorced too?
Did you hear him define which 47% he was talking about? He was specifically talking about people who receive government benefits without paying tax on them... That includes retirees on a pension they PAID for, as well as disabled vets on VA pensions. The fact that you can't dodge this one does not mean I have nothing, it means you're wrong. As a vet who has worked since the age of 14 (part time while I was in school), I think your hasty generalizations illustrate your lack of credibility.
Earlier I wrote, "When I heard Romney say that 47% would vote for Obama no matter what I did not hear him say that disabled veterans were freeloaders. You have quite the imagination. " I did hear him speak. Not one time did he mention or imply veterans or disabled veterans were people he could not convince to vote for him no matter what. I know this particular misunderstanding is important to you. I do not understand why. No doubt you are one of the 47% who voted for Obama no matter what. Are you seeking justification for your poor decision? This tells me that you also don't know what a dodge is. How can I be any more direct in answering your misunderstanding? LOL. Now that really hurts (not really). You served but you learned nothing. That is a shame.
Earlier I wrote, "So you are for continuing unconstitutional practices because we are already doing them? Interesting. How would you have ended slavery? Slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years before we abolished it. Funding agencies that should not exist if we were following our Constitution is just one more step in abolishing involuntary servitude. No real harm will come from you if we remove your chains." Do you think human nature has changed over the last 300 years? Why do you despise this nation and its people so much? It is clear that you agree with my assessment that unconstitutional agencies (extra-constitutional if you wish) should continue. You agree that unconstitutional practices should continue because we are already doing them. This form of slavery, where I am forced to work two days each week for the benefit of others, is the new slavery. You seem to like it. Am I paying for your Internet access, large screen color TV and cell phone? - - - Updated - - - If children of other colors were killing each other at the same high rates then my focus would have been oh them. The same solution will prevent the others from being the same kinds of victims of democratic party politics that black children and young men have been. Hispanics are catching up. But blacks have been kept on the Democratic Party Massah's plantation for so long their policies have hurt them the worst. They must be the first focus of freedom from Democratic party policies as they have been kept in chains and harmed the worst by those policies. In freeing them we free all of us.
Absolutely. Do you think that the needs of the average citizen have not changed in the last 300 years? That's a perfect example of a "loaded question" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question), which you resort to consistantly. It does not help your case, particularly given that my interests have clearly been to preserve lives of citizens by preventing unnecessary death. The fact that government agencies are performing roles that were inconveivable several centuries ago is automatically a negative? What does the Constitution say about such contemporary issues as drug dealing, NGO terrorists, IP protection of military contractors? More likely that I pay for yours... It isn't a problem for me because I'd rather pay a tiny percentage of my income and NOT be surrounded by misery and poverty. So it's clear, you provide unconstitutional solutions on the basis of race, because the frame of reference in your research is based on race. That is a good example of racism. So your solution is to "free" people by providing them with nothing. Sounds an awful lot like you resent any program that isn't a direct benefit to you.
Eariler I wrote, "Do you think human nature has changed over the last 300 years?" Really? What has changed? Have the ambitious become less or more so? Are we more jealous of another's success or less? Human nature has not changed. The important limits set in place in the US Constitution are not needed any less today than when they were crafted in compromise in the 1787. Human needs and wants have no limits. That has not changed either.
You're right about one thing, he didn't specifically list the benefits people were receiving when he demonized almost half the country; but VA pensions clearly fall within the type of benefit he was talking about (government benefits, untaxable). Yes, I voted for Obama; and I'm glad I did. If Chris Christie runs, I'll vote for him... It's not about the political party for me, it's about the values and integrity of the individual. A cantidate who changes his message every day in order to pander to whoever he believes his audience is does not show values or integrity in my view. You're desperately trying to avoid the fact that he was talking about all people who receive a government benefit without paying taxes, and that this includes many disabled veterans... How much clearer can it be? You presume that you are already familiar with what military people should learn in service. That exhibits disgusting levels of narcissism. By the way, is your username supposed to be "mister veritis", with veritis being the latin word for truth? If so, you should probably know that you've misspelled it; which is totally appropriate. http://www.ontology.co/veritas.htm
Earlier I wrote, "Why do you despise this nation and its people so much?" Thanks. I am all about perfection. What you claim and what you are doing are two different things. You are shifting more burden to potential victims who will be effectively disarmed by the state. If your intention was to save lives you would be insisting that the government provide, at no charge to the citizen, a weapon and the training suitable for an effective self defense. Once the politicians are not stopped from doing a thing by the Constitution all hope of maintaining liberty is lost. And once lost the generation that lost it shall not see it again. If it is unconstitutional and you believe it not only must be done but that the federal government must do it then go through the effort to amend the Constitution. Or don't do it. Does it matter? I also asked, "This form of slavery, where I am forced to work two days each week for the benefit of others, is the new slavery. You seem to like it. Am I paying for your Internet access, large screen color TV and cell phone?" Don't be silly. I am not demanding that you pay more for my benefit. And then, "If children of other colors were killing each other at the same high rates then my focus would have been on them." Are you so blinded by race? You are. Okay. It is the racist who sees race in everything. "Hispanics are catching up. But blacks have been kept on the Democratic Party Massah's plantation for so long their policies have hurt them the worst. They must be the first focus of freedom from Democratic party policies as they have been kept in chains and harmed the worst by those policies. In freeing them we free all of us." I am impressed at the ease with which you miss every important point.
You did not understand a thing he said. Do you believe most veterans would vote for a Marxist intent upon fundamentally transforming the nation? I do not. Do you believe that veterans benefits are just another entitlement, like an Obamaphone or Obamabucks? I do not. They, and you, are the same. Statists. Understood. If that were actually true you would not be glad you voted for the Marxist. Uh-huh. It is not despair at all. You did not even understand his comments. I get that now. I was expecting way more from you than you were capable of. Patriotism. Love for country. Love for the ideals the Constitution embraces...year. Twenty years. US Army. Only I actually did learn something. Oh boy, you sure got me there. It comes up from time to time. Veritis was part of the name of a company I founded long ago. We wanted Veritas to be part of the name but another start up beat us to it. Only a pedant would recognize the difference. I may have explained that to another know-it-all on this board. Maybe not. I don't mind explaining it.
The disparity between what it is to be "rich" and what it is to be "poor" has been massively changed, to provide one tiny example that has an effect on every facet of life... As I asked previously, do you think that the needs of the average citizen have not changed in the last 300 years?
Yes, you present fallacy perfectly. Congrats on that. I see, so you have a problem with the government providing free health care, but would advocate the government providing free weapons training and firearms to the person who you need a gun to protect yourself from... Wow. You want free training, join the military. So, in your mind, all the laws of the land should exist solely as Constitutional Amendments? Talk about dilluting the original document... If I were as good at fallacies as you are, I might ask "Why do you hate the Constitution so much?" Ok, so it doesn't matter if we address contemporary issues, as long as we don't have any regulatory agencies to do it? How exactly do you address NGO terrorists without intelligence agencies? How do you address food safety without a FDA equivalent? The last time the government reduced regulation, gulf of mexico got an oil bath and we started a global financial crisis... I'd say if fricking matters a lot. Sure you are, you want free weapons and training, but without actually having to do any work for it. You perform research based on racial parameters, you want some people to be legislated differently on the basis of their race, have made sm@rt-@ss comments about shipping blacks off to other countries to be their problem... and they you call me a racist because I point out how flawed your statements are? That may be the most twisted thing I've read on these boards. You excel at making broad sweeping generalizations without providing any specifics. In short, you have no point; just an opinion and flowerly language that is left for others to decipher.
You do not understand a thing he said. He did not refer solely to welfare (particularly not corporate welfare), he referred to ALL benefits. Imagine that, if discussing national politics rationally one has to believe in the integrity of the nation. You mean the only person there who actually said what he meant from the beginning and didn't change his position on an hourly basis? I'm not surprised that you (who have illustrated your racism) would vote AGAINST a black president on that basis alone, but what were you voting FOR given that you couldn't know Romney's positions on anything? "Despair"? Where did that come from? As for the lack of understanding, please quote the part of his speech where he said "except for disabled veterans". Claiming to be a patriot who loves his country is BS when you refuse to put the good of the state above your own selfish interests... obvious contradiction there. Given the distortion of truth you profer, I find this very apt. I may be pedantic, but I suppose attention to detail is something you'd be unused to since you obviously didn't learn that in service.
I see another significant problem. You believe that human nature has changed because of things external to human nature. Do we still hate and love, act heroically in the face of adversity and covet our neighbor's wife and property? Do we defend our ideals, give to those who need help and succumb to our lusts? In the last three hundred years have we become less like men and more like angels? I know I have kept you in suspense. The answer is that our nature remains the same. The need for a document that constrains the government from doing all that you would like for it to is need just as much today as at any other time in our history.
I see another significant problem. You believe that human nature has changed because of things external to human nature. Do we still hate and love, act heroically in the face of adversity and covet our neighbor's wife and property? Do we defend our ideals, give to those who need help and succumb to our lusts? In the last three hundred years have we become less like men and more like angels? I know I have kept you in suspense. The answer is that our nature remains the same. The need for a document that constrains the government from doing all that you would like for it to is need just as much today as at any other time in our history.
Earlier I wrote, "What you claim and what you are doing are two different things. You are shifting more burden to potential victims who will be effectively disarmed by the state. If your intention was to save lives you would be insisting that the government provide, at no charge to the citizen, a weapon and the training suitable for an effective self defense." It is not free. Someone always pays. Where do you think that six thousand billion dollars is going to come from? Do you realize just how much dead economists have influenced your thinking? Radical Karl never imagined he would have so many useful (I admit I was going to say idiots, a phrase usually attributed to Lenin) misinformed people helping him wreck capitalism. You willingly give up freedom for poverty. Nice twisting of my words. It is what you do. You have claimed that your intention in making citizens less free while vastly increasing the State's power is to save lives. If your intention was to save lives you would be insisting that the government provide, at no charge to the citizen, a weapon and the training suitable for an effective self defense. But that is not your actual intention. Your words indicate your fraud. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt and the ribbons. "Once the politicians are not stopped from doing a thing by the Constitution all hope of maintaining liberty is lost. And once lost the generation that lost it shall not see it again. If it is unconstitutional and you believe it not only must be done but that the federal government must do it then go through the effort to amend the Constitution. Or don't do it." Why do you insist on claiming a thing that is not so? Have you read the Constitution? Are you familiar with the enumerated powers? Do you understand why governments must be constrained? You are so badly uninformed. All of our current problems are the result of too much government, not too little. I see your intention is to play the fool. "And then, "If children of other colors were killing each other at the same high rates then my focus would have been on them." Are you so blinded by race? You are. Okay. It is the racist who sees race in everything." I understand that you are racist. You are probably black and have an enormous chip on your shoulder. It will hold you back. On the other hand I have been very specific. The bulk of our gun violence problem stems from young black fatherless men killing each other with guns. Getting the government out of the business of replacing the black father with welfare goodies would end that disparity. You are all about people getting goodies and not about people having lives worth living. That is the difference between us. I create wealth through my efforts. You want my wealth consumed for your purposes. I am a citizen. You are a tyrant wannabe.
LOL Lord knows I have pointed that out to him on many occasions, I even have a pet nickname for him....TWISTER. Amen
There is a tough balance between allowing guns for self protection and not allowing guns so that everybody can be better protected. But we are faced with the fact that our current lack of control over guns is causing our country's sky high homicide rate which happens to much higher than other countries which have much lower homicide rates. And we are also faced with the fact that controlling or banning guns would wrongly take away the freedom of those who use guns for recreational purposes and go against our constitutional right to bear arms. Given that "less guns=less deaths," how can we reduce the amount of guns in a fair way that works for everyone? There are several solutions to this problem. First, everyone who wants to be allowed to own guns should have to complete a gun safety class which ensures they understand the dangers of guns and understand the importance of proper gun usage. This class should also involve a interview which at the end decides whether or not that person should be allowed to own a gun. I think that will help keep guns out of the hands of those who will use guns to commit homicide. However, that will require trained gun professionals and course materials which can get expensive. As a less costly alternative, there could tougher gun laws and strengthened local law enforcement. Though, these alternatives may be a struggle to impose they may be keys to reducing our national homicide rate.
If you had taken the time to read through these threads, you would have to recant that statement. Homicide rate is down in the US and gun ownership is up.
You then have to ensure that gun safes are used to restrict the access to that gun to only those who have gone through the process you describe
Where the hell did you see that? In fact, where have you seen in this world that gun control reduces homicide rates? Please tell me you have some actual facts to back this statement up (Rhetorical question, no stats exist) Because of this statement alone, you have no leg to stand on in this debate, your just making foolish statements which cannot be backed up because they are untrue.
Also, if you did your homework before erroniously spouting off about things you do not know, legal guns or guns that are stolen from someone who owned them legally are used in a rediculously low percentage of the gun homicides. Please investigate this matter more before taking what media tells you as truth.
