Political Discussion

[AngelinaCatHub]

An Illinois doctor diagnoses ObamaCare in one amazing sentence

This has got to give even the most Liberal, a bit of a laugh.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/091012-624914-barbara-bellar-for-illinois-state-senate-describes-obamacare-video.htm

[filed]

I realize that guns are a hot point issue for some people. I admit I don't understand it. I have never had a gun never felt like I needed one. I don't have any problem with someone wanting them for hunting or self defense. For those purposes you don't need assault rifles, automatic weapons and 30 round clips.

Thanks for your reply. I believe the primary defining characteristics in that law were cosmetic. Flash suppressors, telescoping stocks, and the like. Basically, ban them because they look scary. As to 9-10 rounds, why is that number appropriate, and 30 is not?

[AngelinaCatHub]

Or Aliens take over tomorrow with even better weapons....

Yes, the best USA can provide. Automatic too. My AR is not. (yet)

[IBroke]

I'll keep my weapons and thanks for the permission. I don't intend to take over the government with them. I intend to survive the fall of the World monetary system and the fall of civilization. The guns will be for those who are not wise enough to prepare and take away from those who prepared. Family will be first. A good book to read is "One Second After". At this time it is fiction. One EMP bomb above the United States could take the power grid down. All movement in our country will stop. Most grocery stores do not have a "back room" with weeks of food. They get daily deliveries by truck. When that stops food in a day will be gone.

Or Aliens take over tomorrow with even better weapons....

[AngelinaCatHub]

I don't care if you have a gun. I have never met anyone who was trying to stop everyone from having a gun. There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips. I lived in Chi Town when MLK was assasinated. You have not idea what I saw and no police department could have stopped the riiot I was fortunate to drive out of. We live in a democracy (if it hasn't already become a plutocracy) you don't like who is in power vote them out. You again are in error. We live in a Representative Republic. A Democracy is "Two Wolves and one Sheep voting on what to have for dinner. "You will NEVER overthrow the United States government by "force" - it is crazy to think so. That is correct. You really need to open your thinking and go see that movie 2016. Obama was told by his Communist friends in college that by politics would be the way to "RULE" our Country. At the time of the 2nd Amendment there were single round muskets and pistols. Are you limiting our Founding Fathers to be stuck in time? The reason of the Second Amendment was "Just in case". That is why they made a Republic and not a Democracy. NO ONE contemplated the fire power we have today. When I hear people say they are against Obama because they think he is going to try to take their guns away that sounds as crazy as people who don't believe he was born here. There are many books about the rise of the Third Reich. Try to find some of that history. You will be surprised how close our current times are as it was in the 20's in Europe. If you want your guns for self defense have at it. Talking about needing "assault rifles" in case the government becomes rogue well that is plain........

I'll keep my weapons and thanks for the permission. I don't intend to take over the government with them. I intend to survive the fall of the World monetary system and the fall of civilization. The guns will be for those who are not wise enough to prepare and take away from those who prepared. Family will be first. A good book to read is "One Second After". At this time it is fiction. One EMP bomb above the United States could take the power grid down. All movement in our country will stop. Most grocery stores do not have a "back room" with weeks of food. They get daily deliveries by truck. When that stops food in a day will be gone.

[msm859]

At the time, the citizens owned the same type of arms as the military, we should still have that option, for ordinary small arms anyway.

At the time of the revolution, there were privately owned canons, just like those used by the military.

Obama voted for complete bans of pistols, I don't know why he wouldn't again.I don't believe that. Show me exactly were he made that vote. See http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

Well to follow your statements to their logical conclusion then anyone should be able to have every weapon available in their personal arsenal - hand grenades, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, fighter jets......where does it stop?

[msm859]

You state "There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips...."
1) So, extraordinary people have reasons to have them, and how do you define "ordinary"? Non- law enforcement/military
2) How do you define "assault rifle"...is it based upon how scary they look?However, it is defined by law - there was a assault rifle ban I believe from 1994 - 2004
3) If 30 rounds is too many, what is the number of rounds that is OK in your book? 9 - 10

I realize that guns are a hot point issue for some people. I admit I don't understand it. I have never had a gun never felt like I needed one. I don't have any problem with someone wanting them for hunting or self defense. For those purposes you don't need assault rifles, automatic weapons and 30 round clips.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Posted twice in error.

[chrisdfw]

I don't care if you have a gun. I have never met anyone who was trying to stop everyone from having a gun. There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips. We live in a democracy (if it hasn't already become a plutocracy) you don't like who is in power vote them out. You will NEVER overthrow the United States government by "force" - it is crazy to think so. At the time of the 2nd Amendment there were single round muskets and pistols. NO ONE contemplated the fire power we have today. When I hear people say they are against Obama because they think he is going to try to take their guns away that sounds as crazy as people who don't believe he was born here. If you want your guns for self defense have at it. Talking about needing "assault rifles" in case the government becomes rogue well that is plain........

At the time, the citizens owned the same type of arms as the military, we should still have that option, for ordinary small arms anyway.

At the time of the revolution, there were privately owned canons, just like those used by the military.

Obama voted for complete bans of pistols, I don't know why he wouldn't again.

[filed]

I don't care if you have a gun. I have never met anyone who was trying to stop everyone from having a gun. There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips. We live in a democracy (if it hasn't already become a plutocracy) you don't like who is in power vote them out. You will NEVER overthrow the United States government by "force" - it is crazy to think so. At the time of the 2nd Amendment there were single round muskets and pistols. NO ONE contemplated the fire power we have today. When I hear people say they are against Obama because they think he is going to try to take their guns away that sounds as crazy as people who don't believe he was born here. If you want your guns for self defense have at it. Talking about needing "assault rifles" in case the government becomes rogue well that is plain........

You state "There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips...."
1) So, extraordinary people have reasons to have them, and how do you define "ordinary"?
2) How do you define "assault rifle"...is it based upon how scary they look?
3) If 30 rounds is too many, what is the number of rounds that is OK in your book?

[msm859]

Tell me you ever heard of any inanimate object moving by it's self. Ludicrous statement. If a gun shoots, something has moved it. Most likely a person in a case of murder. Now there are admittedly a LOT of guns in our Country. Second amendment states we should have one. Also it states that if the Government become rouge, we have an inalienable right to take it back. THAT is the true intent of the Second Amendment. New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. have pretty high shootings. All are gun restricted. Kannasaw GA made it LAW for every able family HAD to own a gun. The crime rate plummeted. If it's not a gun, a bow and arrow is capable. A baseball bat, how about a rock?

The New Black Panther party guys that our head legal Authority Eric Holder forgave when it was obvious that they inhibited people from voting by showing a "LEGAL WEAPON" called a baseball bat, yet HE sponsored under his authority and did cause the murder of at least one American boarder guard and many Mexicans by supplying many ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPONS, and his budd PresBO is covering him, sure did work out to well. As I have stated, Guns do NOT kill people. People kill people.

Some years ago, I was a target of a guy who opened and tried to drag me out of a car at a light, I blindly shot the red light and left him. I now have a legal holstered weapon at my right leg allowed by law. There won't be another try and it's just not a good idea to run a red light by flooring your car blindly. I was lucky. 'Hub

I don't care if you have a gun. I have never met anyone who was trying to stop everyone from having a gun. There is NO reason for ordinary people to have assault rifles and 30 round clips. We live in a democracy (if it hasn't already become a plutocracy) you don't like who is in power vote them out. You will NEVER overthrow the United States government by "force" - it is crazy to think so. At the time of the 2nd Amendment there were single round muskets and pistols. NO ONE contemplated the fire power we have today. When I hear people say they are against Obama because they think he is going to try to take their guns away that sounds as crazy as people who don't believe he was born here. If you want your guns for self defense have at it. Talking about needing "assault rifles" in case the government becomes rogue well that is plain........

[AngelinaCatHub]

Guns do kill people. Look at the stats of countries with stricter gun laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
The United States is still the wild wild west.

Tell me you ever heard of any inanimate object moving by it's self. Ludicrous statement. If a gun shoots, something has moved it. Most likely a person in a case of murder. Now there are admittedly a LOT of guns in our Country. Second amendment states we should have one. Also it states that if the Government become rouge, we have an inalienable right to take it back. THAT is the true intent of the Second Amendment. New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. have pretty high shootings. All are gun restricted. Kannasaw GA made it LAW for every able family HAD to own a gun. The crime rate plummeted. If it's not a gun, a bow and arrow is capable. A baseball bat, how about a rock?

The New Black Panther party guys that our head legal Authority Eric Holder forgave when it was obvious that they inhibited people from voting by showing a "LEGAL WEAPON" called a baseball bat, yet HE sponsored under his authority and did cause the murder of at least one American boarder guard and many Mexicans by supplying many ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPONS, and his budd PresBO is covering him, sure did work out to well. As I have stated, Guns do NOT kill people. People kill people.

Some years ago, I was a target of a guy who opened and tried to drag me out of a car at a light, I blindly shot the red light and left him. I now have a legal holstered weapon at my right leg allowed by law. There won't be another try and it's just not a good idea to run a red light by flooring your car blindly. I was lucky. 'Hub

[AngelinaCatHub]

I think they were bad policy, took too many low income people off the income tax rolls completely. I think even very low income people should contribute to the tax rolls, after all they are the biggest beneficiaries of government largess (other than banks, which really irks me... don't get me started on the bailouts for rich banks). But none of it holds a candle to the over spending. When you are running a trillion dollar a year deficit and fighting about 100-200 billion in tax cuts annually, its preposterous. We spend too much. Personally I think we need to cut spending by 50% or more and turn things like education back over to state and local government where at least I can get an audience if I am unhappy, My mayor will take my call, my senator will not and Obama most certainly will not.

What people don't understand is there are two effects of cutting taxes, short and long term. In the long term putting money in the hands of the wealthy results in investment, but in the short term it doesn't do a damn thing. On the other hand, putting money in the hands of the poor or middle class does have a short term effect, but sadly results in very little investment. Short term is critical to the economy now, and long term is critical to our standard of living over time, we really need both but not necessarily always at the same time.

Sadly, mathematically we might have a real problem that is getting beyond any reasonable capability to fix, so I expect eventually we'll see a devaluation to deal with the debt. What fun.

I like your take on energy vs pricing, and everyone should pay taxes. Here is a simple way to do this. For instance how much is a gallon of gas? Did you know the price is X plus about 50 cents tax Federal, State, local? The oil company actually makes less than the taxes on the gas. The increase is not a profit to them, it is a cost raise to them as well. I heard they average about 3 cents per gallon. I don't know what they get now.

It is a very simple way to get out of our depression. Make either the Fair Tax, or a sales tax on all items that equals the LOWEST IRS percentage that below median would pay. Get rid of the "earned income credit" named improperly in that people get money for paying NO tax in. This would tax equally fair. The more you spend the more tax you pay. Don't spend it and you are not taxed. This would get those who black market stuff, sell stuff to an individual, collect on hookers who deal cash only (I have heard), nd drug pushers who pay no tax. In other words if the percent is 15% and a poor person pays 3.00 bucks for a six pack, he pays 45 cents tax. If a Rich guy buys a Champagne for 30 bucks, he gets taxed the same rate but he pays 4.50. Now this is totally fair. Same tax rate but the Rich pay more taxes. The Libs would even be happy. The criminals doing black market and have never paid taxes might not like it though. Our Society would quickly recover.


Hub

[filed]

[QUOTE=chrisdfw;582827]...turn things like education back over to state and local government where at least I can get an audience if I am unhappy, My mayor will take my call, my senator will not and Obama most certainly will not...
Hard for me to agree with you any more regarding how education spending needs to be locally driven. I live in Florida, and happen to have great public schools in my area. We also have low property taxes. Whenever I hear people complaining about how we need to spend more Federal money to support education, I first tell them that we do NOT, and that spending on schools should be driven locally by property taxes and such. When they argue with me about it, I always try to remember to thank them for the Federal Tax dollars they already contribute to my great elementary school here in my town in Florida, and how their financial support, circulated through Washington DC, continues to subsidize my already low property taxes.

[chrisdfw]

Good luck with getting one party to talk about cutting defense. But I will cut to the chase. I don't believe we can balance the budget without letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. What is your position on the Bush tax cuts?

I think they were bad policy, took too many low income people off the income tax rolls completely. I think even very low income people should contribute to the tax rolls, after all they are the biggest beneficiaries of government largess (other than banks, which really irks me... don't get me started on the bailouts for rich banks). But none of it holds a candle to the over spending. When you are running a trillion dollar a year deficit and fighting about 100-200 billion in tax cuts annually, its preposterous. We spend too much. Personally I think we need to cut spending by 50% or more and turn things like education back over to state and local government where at least I can get an audience if I am unhappy, My mayor will take my call, my senator will not and Obama most certainly will not.

What people don't understand is there are two effects of cutting taxes, short and long term. In the long term putting money in the hands of the wealthy results in investment, but in the short term it doesn't do a damn thing. On the other hand, putting money in the hands of the poor or middle class does have a short term effect, but sadly results in very little investment. Short term is critical to the economy now, and long term is critical to our standard of living over time, we really need both but not necessarily always at the same time.

Sadly, mathematically we might have a real problem that is getting beyond any reasonable capability to fix, so I expect eventually we'll see a devaluation to deal with the debt. What fun.