Political Ramblings

[thaiturkey]

Very nice!

And what's the purpose? Playing at Taliban?

 

[Back2MyRoots]

I think that the people screaming for stiffer gun control have never been forced to use a gun to protect themselves.

When my husband and I started dating, I had never pulled a trigger a day in my life. He purchased a few guns that I would be comfortable shooting and started taking me to the range. I went through a safety class and learned how to use several types of firearms well.

When Kevin and I got married and I moved in, the area he was living in was.... less than wholesome to say the least. And he worked night shift 2 weeks of every month. One night, around 2:00 a.m. a group of young boys tried to break into our home. I was alone and scared to death. I called 911 and announced to the burglars that I had a gun. Well of course my voice was shaking so they didn't take me seriously and continued to attempt to pry our doors open; some were at the front door and some were at the back. I yelled again and then slid the pump on our shotgun. It's a home defense weapon, identical to what the coast guard uses for close range shooting. The pump is loud and commands attention. They stopped in their tracks and ran. It turns out they were using screw drivers and knives to try to wedge the doors open. The 911 call center was less than 2 blocks from our front door. It took almost 45 minutes for the police to respond. If I hadn't had a gun and known how to use it, I shudder to think what could have happened to me that night. One of the boys even left a hunting knife stuck in the door jam. It had his initials on it and had been purchased at a local pawn shop. It was easy to trace and after a little pressure from our sheriff's department, he came clean and ratted on his buddies too. They all admitted that hearing the gun and knowing I was telling the truth was what made them stop.

You say there is no place for self policing? I beg to differ!

 

[ChickensRDinos]

I feel like it is impossible to have a real conversation about guns in this country because people want to shove their fingers in their ears and yell "RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS!" Of course there are people on every extreme but for the most part I don't think people fighting for gun control want to eliminate guns - they want to change the way guns are sold and make it a little less easy for people to buy them without a background check, license or safety/knowledge test. Even as a gun owner I find myself often agreeing with this.

Everyone wants to talk about rights this and rights that but the truth is rights come with responsibilities and no one seems to want to discuss those. I am all for waiting periods and background checks and a certain amount of regulation. If you are not responsible enough to handle your rights then perhaps you don't get to have them anymore when your choices can have such extreme consequences. Accidents happen but the truth is it is really easy to buy a gun and the "safety" exam I took was a total joke. I feel like it should be at least as difficult as driving a car.

There are a lot of reasons to own guns. If that gun on the back of the truck is a hunting set up, then it is unclear and a bit ambiguous and to people who are not hunters it does at a glance look a little violent and extreme. I think sometimes the best way to make a point is to understand your audience and if you want to argue against gun control there are better ways to articulate what you are trying to say.

 

[chickened]

Just heard on the news about the mall shooting last night that the gun used was stolen the day before... how does someone stealing a gun fit in with gun control? The guy could have stolen it from a policeman or a national guardsman it really is a mute point.

Only law abiding people abide by the law... remember that one.

 

[rufus]

All I can say about the single mother living on benefits, is that if she can save £2000 out of an annual budget of £15,500 she must be very clever with money! As for the gun laws debate I say this. Never believe that laws can't be changed and that you will always have the same rights as your ancestors, it just isn't true, wherever you live in the world. Life evolves and so do laws. Sometimes we win and sometimes, some people think they have lost. It is the way of things. Some rights were granted in a time when frontiers were only being pushed back and with little on no policing in place it was desirable to allow people arms with which to defend themselves. It was a solution in the 18/19th century but how necessary is it in these days of highly developed policing practices? Back in the days of the land rushes, it seems that anyone could stake a claim to an unoccupied piece of land and come to own it legitimately. Same in the days of the gold rush. That cannot be done now can it? You even have laws about how many chickens you might keep in certain areas. Do you think your ancestors had those laws? Gun laws will be tightened because we live in a far more sophisticated and legislated society than we did. There is no place for self policing. The writing is well and truly on the wall.

Would you live in Detroit, Flint or Cleveland without a firearm? Not for long I bet.

 

[hemet dennis]

A flat tax rate is regressive.

A poor person is spends far more of their income, it goes straight back into the economy, supporting business and workers. US corporate taxes and taxes on high income "earners" are at the some of the lowest rates ever. I still don't understand why money earned through working should be taxed at a higher rate than "unearned" income from investments. Isn't income, income?

The people I know from "socialist" countries like England and Norway have more vacation time, less debt, better security in retirement, more options for travel, better access to university education, and better healthcare. I don't know many average retired Americans who can vacation abroad for weeks at a time; I do know several retired average Brits who can. I know Brits who have to purchase special health insurance to come to this country, and Indians who return to India for heart surgery because the care is cheaper, and in many cases, better.

A flat tax rate is not regressive.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[2][3][4][5][6] "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[7][8] In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes tend to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability to pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability to pay. The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, in which the average tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[9][10][11][12] In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

 

[Q9]

All this talk about taxes is saddening. You're all missing the painfully obvious solution:

Cut spending.

Cut all foreign aid, get rid of the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Education, Interior, and HUD, get rid of the TSA, stop subsidies (corporate welfare), and bring our soldiers home as a starting point. While we're at it, we ought to get the Navy back to patrolling trade routes and guarding the coasts while ending the federal war on drugs.

Good starting point in my opinion.

 

[hemet dennis]

Maybe we should ban commercial airliners. Does society allow commercial airplanes? Blaming society for personal choices is absolutely absurd.

Well it was people that made the personal choice to not buy G.M. cars so we had to bail them out because the people didn't know the right choice.

The auto bail out will cost the taxpayers about $25 billion. But that's what we get for making the wrong choices.

 

[Blackcrest]

All this talk about taxes is saddening. You're all missing the painfully obvious solution:

Cut spending.

Cut all foreign aid, get rid of the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Education, Interior, and HUD, get rid of the TSA, stop subsidies (corporate welfare), and bring our soldiers home as a starting point. While we're at it, we ought to get the Navy back to patrolling trade routes and guarding the coasts while ending the federal war on drugs.

Good starting point in my opinion.

Well it seems some one has a clue, Of course they use a Ron Paul Icon

 

[bakerjw]

Surely, during a recession, spending is one way to stimulate an economy.

It is bad policy to spend what you don't have. My share is $142,648 when i just checked. That is not debt per person which is $52,049, but for taxpayer. These numbers are going up for the foreseeable future with no end in sight. We must stop the spending.