"I cannot tell you if any of the 33,000 deaths from guns each year are justified."
Fact: The majority of of those firearms deaths are self-inflicted suicides.
Fact: The vast majority of firearms murders are committed by inner city minority gangs.
Fact: If you are not suicidal, not a gang member, not a police officer, not a criminal, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
If you progressives really want to do something about firearms deaths, then demand that inner city gangs be harshly death with, and pay attention to the national suicide crisis. Keep in mind that you progressives are the ones enthusiastically supporting suicides...as long as a doctor assists!
BTW, none of your media sources disprove anything I said.
Unlike the progressives here, I do not use biased media sources. I use the CDC and FBI statistics.
With your attitude, and your statement, it is apparent you will not accept any evidence that is contrary to your belief.
I recommend others stop arguing with you. In the scheme of things, your opinion and my opinion are not important at this time. The day will come when changes will take place, but admittedly, not anytime soon.
Load your gun, keep it handy. I guess it makes you feel safer.
I would choose an alarm system, double bolt locks, a good dog and staying away from bars.
"A gun for protection, should and is supposed to be our right, but we already need a permit, even to keep it out of sight."
I don't need a permit and neither do most other Americans, nor should they as long as they are law abiding adults.
A permit means we have to ask government for permission and that turns a right into a privilege.
In 2013, according to the CDC, there were 33,599 gun deaths. A whopping 63% were self inflicted suicides, 586 were accidental, 464 were legal intervention, and 196 were undetermined.
There were 10,945 gun homicides and 7,935 were black and Hispanic, mostly gang related.
So, if you are not suicidal, not a gang member, not a police officer, not a criminal, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.
I believe the intent of the 2 Amendment was to ensure that a monarch, democracy or dictatorship was to never disarm the people. That an armed populace showed that the people were willing to maintain liberty at any cost. Perhaps these arms are not needed today, or 50 years from now, but history has shown that this is the only solution to maintaining liberty. History is replete with examples of people that relinquished the spirit to defend liberty at all cost and died by the millions at the hands of so called "benevolent governments or leaders". Many take liberty for granted because someone elses grand parents died for it and they had it handed to them.
Pistols, revolvers, handguns kill more people than AR 15's I suspect, but there is no movement to stop handguns. Why is that? When a CAIC WZ-10 flies over your house what will you do?
When government tells us we do not need guns, we need guns.
And dont take our words for it, Me, Will, Horseback, Wilderness, etc see: History or Normandy American Cemetery. Also, another thing, when you are handing over everyone else right to defend themselves, if you change your mind and think that it was not such a great idea, do you think they will give you the right back? And lol when they choose not to give your rights back, what exactly are you going to do about it? It'll be too late then.
Well said, but Americans are and always have been different, so unlike the British and Australians, we will not meekly accept tyrannical government attempts to deprive us of our God-given and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Um.... Will..... in case you missed it, Mike Huckleberrybee already declared a state of "Tyranny" in Kenticky (I know it's KENTUCKY, it's a type-o but I liked it ) about a few months back or so, but nobody seemed to listen nor care about a Law Breaker which is the way it should be ~ Mike was indeed ADAMANT though, It was Tyranny he claimed ~ ~
But anyway, when that BIG Epic Fictitious Imaginary "PRETEND" Battle does indeed commence between the CONservative Republican Private Citizen Gun Nutz like yourself, AGAINST my United States of America Armed Forces, BEST of Luck, I think you're gonna' need it ~
But free speech in practice is not a 1st degree weapon capable of inflicting injury or killing. Misused, free speech could result in injury indirectly but it isn't a weapon that when used recklessly will result in death.
"But anyway, when that BIG Epic Fictitious Imaginary "PRETEND" Battle does indeed commence between the CONservative Republican Private Citizen Gun Nutz like yourself, AGAINST my United States of America Armed Forces, BEST of Luck, I think you're gonna' need it ~ smile"
What makes you think they would be on your side?
BTW, remember when your " United States of America Armed Forces" almost lost the war in Iraq due to a few, poorly armed insurgents? There are at least 100,000,000 armed American citizens, and if even just one fourth of them (many are retired military!) took up arms against tyranny, they would outnumber the military by 20 to 1 and all across the nation. The military could not prevail.
I know that you clueless progressives think that the military is actually going to turn on the citizens for you, but you are sadly mistaken. They will turn on you instead.
What is it with you guys and the Chicken Little, sky is falling scenario? The only real threat of tyranny and fascism is found in the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates.
lol ~ Keep DREAMIN' Will Starr ~ ~
The United States Armed Forces have a Legal, Moral & Ethical OBLIGATION to PROTECT "We the People" which includes my President, Congress, her 4 Million Federal Employees etc ~ If you actually think those individuals in my military would "Miraculously Flip" for a moron like Mike Huckleberrybee and a few DELUSIONAL Hillbillies with gunz like yourself, you are definately beyond HELP ~ ~
Like so many other progressives, you are so woefully ignorant. Look up 'Posse Comitatus Act", and get back to me.
In any case, the military attacking citizens was your loony scenario, not mine.
NEVER my Loony Scenario and personally Will, I could care less about an ACT that on its face, looks like it was written AGES ago when Dinosaurs were stomping on Cave Man Testicles, or a DRUNKEN Wyatt Twerp was tryin' to figure out how to efficiently FLUSH the Remnants from his Out-House so he could drink a few more Quarts of Whiskey ~ I and Millions of True Americans have MOVED On leaving the PAST in the Dust, maybe that's why we're called Progressive Democrats ~
I'm NOT obsessed with going BACKWARD and I don't wear Cowboy Costumes like so MANY Gun Nutz do, and that's their primary problem, I'm concerned with the Here & Now, and the FUTURE ~
(Back away slowly and avoid eye contact!)
The only enslavement of the American people in recent decades is that of the self victim -ology , for the convenience of entitlements today , want to be a slave be one , stop blaming someone who didn't do anything to someone who had nothing done to them ! You really need to get off the me wagon wrench !
Just got my new Christmas gun , anybody know where I can find a holster ? This is my protection against zombie Marxist wannabee's.
I gave our progressive gun-grabbers the exact numbers right out of the CDC, telling them who is doing the killing and why, but all of them simply ignored it. Now why would they do that if they were sincere about saving lives? Because they can clearly see that none of their measures would have any real effect? :
In 2013, according to the CDC, there were 33,599 gun deaths. A whopping 63% were self inflicted suicides, 586 were accidental, 464 were legal intervention, and 196 were undetermined.
There were 10,945 gun homicides and 7,935 were blacks and Hispanics, mostly gang related.
Progressive simply do not know what they're talking about, and their goals, even to them, are vague. All they know is that being a progressive means toeing the progressive line, and that line includes hating firearms. Facts do not seem to have any bearing on the matter.
For instance, progressives demand all sorts of training and safety gadgets on firearms. Firearms, like hundreds of other human inventions, are inherently dangerous and accidents do happen. However, in the same year (2013) 136,053 people died from accidents, but only 586 (00.4%) were from firearms!!
99.6% of all accidental deaths in 2013 did not involve firearms, and that was a typical year!
Death from other accidental causes are apparently acceptable to our hysterical gun-haters, but not from firearms. Obviously, the progressive target is not saving lives. The true target is the right to keep and bear arms.
That's right Will , truth , integrity , justice , accuracy in media to the left , is all negotiable . Hysterics , delusion , alteration of truth is the main tool of these same people . Sad part is ; everyone knows this .
Is it just about the war of ideologies that propels them forward at lock step speed ?
That same year, 31,959 people died from falls. Do we hear any hysterical demands to regulate ladders?
BTW, the progressive argument that 'guns only have one purpose' is a blatant red herring. How many purposes an object has is irrelevant. Ladders also have one purpose!
Um....Will.....I see you're Still STRUGGLING Mightily to understand the Difference between a Gun and a Ladder ~ Or a Gun and a Knife, or a Gun and a Toaster Oven, or a Gun and any other MUNDANE Inanimate OBJECT ?
When is tha last time an individual walked into a child filled school with a LADDER with the intent to commit a CRIME ?? I might be wrong, but I don't think it has ever happened unless you count Warner Brother's CARTOONs where Bugs KLONKs Yosemite Sam in the Cabeza ~
The weapon of CHOICE is usually a Gun, the more bullets fired in a few seconds, the better for the criminal, or potential criminal ~
Ok, Will, what is this continuous phallic fantasy on the right about the guns? What is the purpose of a semi-automatic AK-47, to hunt deal or to ping tin cans?
In spite of your hearing rumors from every corner, and despite the rightwing fantasy that Obama is coming for your gun, have any of you lost your rights in this area over the last 7 years? As a matter of fact, these rights are expanding. You should be happy.
"...Will, what is this continuous phallic fantasy on the right about the guns?"
Ah yes, the Alinsky directive to ridicule when you have no real argument...claim owning a firearm is to compensate for a small penis or that the owner is a homosexual. Typical progressive non-argument.
Yeah, when one is obsessed about something that no one has taken, yes, there are similarities. There is no argument, what is yours, nobody has taken your guns? Your powerful NRA lobby has seen to that. So, Really, what's your beef?
Um....Will Starr.....I can't believe you are Desperately trying to peddle the ABSURD Comparison between an Accidental Death at the hands of a vicious LADDER, and the Intentional Death called MURDER at the hands of a GUN ~ Now, who's GUILTY of a NON-Argument ?? ~
So now, Backward CONservative Republicans have De-Evolved from NOT understanding the difference between a Gun & Ladder, to NOT understanding the difference between an Accidental Death & Murder ~
P.S. ~ To try and resolve Obvious Masculinity INSECURITIES & Phallic Delusions of Grandeur, not that I've ever needed it nor do I have experience in said procedure, but maybe Manhood Enlargement Enhancements might be the way to go for all "Gun Nutz", I mean Geez, with the cost of Gunz these days..............*Christmas FUNNIES*......
When they absolutely and steadfastly refuse to address the statistics that prove they have no case, you know you've won. As Alinsky taught progressive radicals, never debate honestly. That's why we see them deflect, distract, distort, deny, dodge, and demonize.
There is no gun crisis and no need for new laws. What is needed is a massive crackdown on inner city crime, and a national drive to prevent suicides.
It really is tragic the distance between the ideologies of right and left . Like children we go on and on and on , If honesty were a single bite of what the discourse or the solutions could be , what a world we could show the rest .
You'll notice that My Esotric never, ever deals with the CDC and FBI statistics because they prove he has no case. Instead, he creates endless straw men and 'statistics' he never sources because he pulled them directly out of you-know-where.
As I said, every statement he makes about the NRA is a bald-faced lie. He has no credibility at all.
"With your attitude, and your statement, it is apparent you will not accept any evidence that is contrary to your belief."
My belief is based on solid fact, and that is that if you are not suicidal, do not belong to an inner-city minority drug gang, are not a police officer, and stay out of bad neighborhoods, you chance of being shot in America is almost zero. There is no gun crisis and no justification for additional burdens on law abiding gun owners.
Neither you nor any one else has produced a shred of evidence that the above statement is not true.
"We are the United States of America which means we should indeed have an extremely "Powerful Federal Government" in ALL aspects..."
Spoken by someone who is obviously and amazingly ignorant of the intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution to create a limited central government while preserving the rights and liberties of We, the People. Our education system today teaches progressive and statist values, not freedom and liberty.
Personally, I could care less about what happened in the 1700's while our FOUNDERS were running around chasing Maids, Disciplining their Slaves, and Frolicking from house to house like a bunch of DRUNKARDS, I"m not really interested in going BACKWARD like most CONservative Republicans, I care more about the "Here & Now", the PRESENT & Future ~
OUR Founders would have NEVER even crated a Centralized Federal Government if it was to be WEAK, Meek, Impotent, and Insignificant as you assert ~ You've made some FANTASTICAL Claims Will, but this one is really Up there ~
Don't forget, "We the People" includes my President, Congress, 4 Million Federal Employees which of course will be FIRED if a Republican gains the White House, Hundreds of Millions of Private Citizens, and of course my Mighty Armed Forces ~ All of which are at odds with your perceived "PRETEND Battle" with America ~
Honestly, who needs foreign bad guys when we have CONservative Republicans right here in Congress who are adamant and steadfast about "Weakening & Diluting" our Federal Government ? ~
"Personally, I could care less about what happened in the 1700's while our FOUNDERS were running around chasing Maids, Disciplining their Slaves, and Frolicking from house to house like a bunch of DRUNKARDS..."
Since you have no interest in our history, I have no interest in your baseless, pointless, and juvenile babblings.
That's OK Will, nor do I have much interest in your Factless Dubious claims ~ But if you are truly interested in our "Founders Original Intent", it's common knowledge that the 2cnd Amendment was intended to be a BAN on arms for private citizens while a RIGHT for those individuals who were affiliated with our Military which was designed to Protect our Country from another Foreign Invasion ~ It's pretty explicit in the language ~
Moreover, the "Original Intent" of the 2cnd Amendment was based upon the Right of OUR Military to "Keep & Bear" arms which at the time, were Muskets & Cannons ~ Just Sayin' ~
Sorry, Alternate, your history is wrong. Prior to the revolution, one of the things the British attempted to do was disarm the colonies. The 2A is response to that history and as a consequence, the 2A was designed to prevent the central gov't from disarming Americans as a group.
The legal interpretation is that individuals have a general right to possess certain firearms, but it is not an absolute right (nothing is), In other words, while EVERYBODY has the Right to bear the type of arms intended to be protected, NO individual has an Absolute Right to possess a firearm, it can be limited on a case by case basis. Both ideas were reaffirmed in Heller.
"But if you are truly interested in our "Founders Original Intent", it's common knowledge that the 2cnd Amendment was intended to be a BAN on arms for private citizens while a RIGHT for those individuals who were affiliated with our Military which was designed to Protect our Country from another Foreign Invasion ~ It's pretty explicit in the language ~"
Then you should have no problem at all backing that up with Founding Father quotes that prove your claim.
But I'm betting you'll weasel on this one too.
I've NEVER "Weaseled OUT", why would I ??
Just to reiterate Will, "It's EXPLICIT in the Language" of the 2cnd Amendment ~ I think that's the BEST quote you're gonna' find on the subject considering it's inserted within the ACTUAL Law ~ It would be FUTILE to look elsewhere ~ Everything else said "OUTSIDE" the Law is PURE Speculation & Irrelevant ~
The Founders "Talked", "Squawked", and got Crocked over many other things, but once reduced to the LAW, they put it right there in Black & White for all the PILGRIMS to adore ~ BTW, the United States Constitution is a "Living Document" to be Amended, Changed, Altered, and Modified as we progress, and YES, when it was written "Arms" were primarily Single Shot Muskets & Cannons to be used by the United States Military against a Foreign Invader ~
Let's see. To paraphrase the amendment, then, we might say:
In times of emergency, we will need a militia - a force of armed men to protect our country. Therefore, it will be the right for all people to own and bear weapons in order that we can then call upon them to defend the new nation. By doing this we will eliminate the need to provide for a standing military dedicated to that task.
But how odd - there is no mention or requirement that only signed up militia members may carry weapons. Only that all people may do so, in order that we can quickly assemble a militia without having to arm them.
From Wikipedia, concerning the Virginia militia in 1607:
"The Virginia militia is an armed force composed of all citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia capable of bearing arms. The Virginia militia was established in 1607 as part of the English militia system. Militia service in Virginia was compulsory for all free males. The main purpose of the Crown's militia was to repel invasions and insurrections and to enforce the laws of the colony."
From this we see that everyone was in the militia. And everyone had a gun, later enforced by the 2A. ALL men (women, children and slaves didn't count, of course), not just some.
In 1771, the verbiage was changed to:
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Notice again that the "right of the people" (not just the militia) shall not be infringed. A man turning 55 and no longer required to serve did not give up his gun - he is one of the people referred to in the Virginia Bill of Rights just as he would be in the 2A. Indeed, the language is explicit that civil authority, not military shall take precedence, and that the guns in the hands of private citizens helps accomplish this.
So this is the beginning of the 2A, and was continued without any radical changes. Specifically, there was never a changed to indicate only the army could own a gun, no matter how much you wish it were so. You might study this wiki article, or others of the time; it certainly gives a lie to your pretense that only the army "people" could own a gun.
I made the mistake of believing that a progressive might actually care about the facts, history, and purpose of the Second Amendment. Silly me.
Read it & WEEP Fellas & Ladies, I know the Amendment is in Direct Conflict with your Imaginative SPECULATION that EVERYONE regardless of Impediment or Psychological Deficiency is allowed to own a gun or bazooka, but I just DEAL in FACTS :
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
*NOTICE the language used is "Keep & Bear" and ZERO Mention of "Tyranny" ~ This passage in REALITY is an Explicit BAN on arms for ALL Private Citizens unless an individual is affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" such as the Armed Forces of the United States of America ~ The "Intent" is Explicit & Unambiguously Crystal Clear ~
I know the TRUTH can sometimes hurt real bad and it's certainly NOT what the National Rifle Association would like to hear, but what can I say at this point ~
The Supreme Court got it wrong and even the Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment were wrong. Only some troll named Alternative Prime knows what it really means.
I NEVER said that Will, you are Mis-Reading my words once again ~
Here's what I mean ~ In between FROLICKING Liasons within the Grand Ball Room, the Founders Actually Drafted a Near PERFECT 2cnd Amendment ~ One which grants Military Personnel, and ONLY Military Personnel, the Right to "Keep & Bear" arms ~
On the flipside, the Supreme Court's Mis-Interpretation of the 2cnd Amendment was just that, a mis-interpretation which means they as a collective group, were WRONG ~
Sure thing. Except for a couple of small matters:
1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2. "...the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"
Either or both statements are clear indications that an armed populace, not just the military, is what was wanted. It just cannot (reasonably) be "interpreted" any other way, no matter how hard you try or how many times you say the same ridiculous thing - that the framers of that document wanted a strong government and weak population. They went to great lengths in the constitution to guarantee that the people, not the government or it's military (militia) had controlling power; in that regard they were all conservatives of the day and as far from the modern socialist liberal as they could get.
No, they didn't want it then and no reasonable person wants it now. We do not all live next to the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
Anybody here ever go to karaoke? Yes, it can be quite amusing at times,and I am sure that it can be cathartic for the participants. But as a professional musician I can tell you that karaoke isn't the type of singing that can really make a difference; that difference being one person standing alone, or in front of a band singing to hundreds, or even thousands of strangers who came out on a Saturday night or Sunday afternoon to spend their hard earned money while enjoying a real professional performance.
It's the same with any profession. Nobody calls a hack to do their plumbing, inspect the wiring in their home, or perform open heart surgery. When people want something done right they call a professional, and the best that they can afford. But you and Will Rogers would have us believe that the average citizen is not only capable of defending themselves against violent criminals, but that they are also capable of standing their ground against a tyrannical government that is in charge of a well trained military. You are suggesting that the ordinary citizen can just snap their fingers and instantly become the member of a "well trained militia".This is a very dangerous, and unrealistic fantasy you are promoting. Here is what a former New York City cop has to say about all of this hillbilly logic:
" ...Armed and dangerous.That’s what civilians would be if untrained Americans carried guns, as some Republicans have recommended to combat terrorism and other mass shooting attacks in the U.S., former New York City top cop Raymond Kelly said Sunday.
“If you have a tumultuous situation where someone who is not well-trained takes out a gun,” Kelly told John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable,” his AM 970 radio show, “you can compound that mayhem.”
Kelly suggested that even the most well-trained gun users, the officers of the NYPD, hit their intended targets only a fraction of the time.
“I am concerned about the wholesale increase of people carrying guns (in the U.S.),” Kelly said. “By definition, they are not going to be particularly well-trained.”
“Just imagine what the percentage would be if you significantly increased the number of people who had guns and who were not properly trained,” he said, adding, “I don’t think we need more guns on the streets in this city or in this country.”
But I suppose sitting there in your armchair you know better than a former top NYC cop. Right wilderness?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2456908
"But you and Will Rogers would have us believe that the average citizen is not only capable of defending themselves against violent criminals, but that they are also capable of standing their ground against a tyrannical government that is in charge of a well trained military."
Now why would you tell a whopper like that? Certainly I've never said the average citizen can defend against violent criminals, but HAVE said that they are more likely to be hurt if they try. Neither have I ever given any indication that armed citizens can stand against determined and well trained military.
So why would you say such a thing? Just to divert attention? To change the subject? To ridicule me with lies that you hope will be believed? Because I'm smart enough to look back on old writing and thought from the time period of the constitution and you're not? Why would you say such falsehoods?
Remember when the left declared the war in Iraq lost? A few poorly armed, poorly equipped, and poorly trained Iraqi insurgents (civilians in revolt) very nearly defeated the best military in the world, and were only defeated when a massive surge force was brought in.
Russia, after years of fighting in Afghanistan with vastly superior equipment and highly trained troops finally had to admit defeat at the hands of a ragtag force of poorly armed, but highly motivated civilians. Truth be told, the US has also been defeated in Afghanistan, and as soon as we leave, tribal forces will resume power.
On top of that, using the military against US citizens is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus act, even if they were willing.
If you really believe that a military force of 500,000 max can defeat a well -armed guerrilla force of millions of well armed civilians, many of whom have military training themselves, then you simply do not know what you are talking about. Stick to the entertainment business.
First of all you are comparing apples to razor blades. The civilian populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia have not grown up fat and lazy. Furthermore, people who have less to lose in a material sense are usually more prone to taking risks. Americans with good jobs, money in the bank, and early retirement aren't going to be eager to bite the hand that feeds.
These are the fences that keep the American in step with the status quo. The cowardly lack of support for Edward Snowden further proves my point. Here is a guy who is actually a true patriot. He saw a crime being committed against the American people by the government, and then he blew the whistle. He risked his future and his life for his countrymen. But what did the majority do? The goat herd threw him under the bus! No Mr. Will, you cannot compare the fat, the lazy, and the greedy to others who have clearly demonstrated heart and courage. You're not in Kansas anymore, and this isn't 1776. Perhaps you , the horse doctor, and the man from Idaho, could invest in a time machine. I think you were all simply born too late.
"I've NEVER "Weaseled OUT", why would I ??"
You just did and because you know you are just blowing your usual smoke. You claimed you knew what the Founding Fathers meant by the Second Amendment but couldn't produce a single quote to back it up.
Typical progressive weaseling from an obvious troll.
Um....Will....So your Definition of "Weaseling OUT" is READING the ACTUAL Amendment ?? ~ Well, then I guess I'm a Weasel by your perverted reasoning ~
Here's how I do things, as "CRAZY" as it seems, when I'm interested in finding the MEANING of a LAW I usually read the LAW in question, it tends to sheds light on the subject ~ I'm sorry if the ACTUAL Words in the 2cnd Amendment don't AGREE with your agenda, but what can I say ~
Anyone that hates the federal government in America , has so little understanding of it's actual role ! Central guidance in the scattered array of states is the role of the feds . Imagine 50 difference education systems , fifty languages , or something taken for granted so much as highway signage , the role of the feds is entirely about the "United " of the United States ,
Anarchy , would rule , And the sad part is , it almost already rules , without enough federal intervention , I can't even imagine the anarchy in travel , taxes , conflicting education standards , border security , clean water , air ? Hate the federal influences = don't be so moronic.
Imagine the micro- anarchy's , Texas invading Arizona , New Mexico annexing Utah , Fifty different government organizations , talk about a refugee problem , the moron-ity of "I hate the feds " tells me one thing , few people are intelligent enough or able enough to understand the politics of America . Nor especially, to appreciate it either .
I am curious about something...why do people assume that criminals are better marksmen and better trained than honest citizens? I think they've been watching too many Hollywood movies.
While this thread goes on and on and on , a few people need to realize that Wrenchbisket is an entertainer , hence most times an ego centric showman , one of those who stands before a crowd for the simple strait forward act of .........attention . Oh, they have their followers , but the likes of Cheryl Crow , Martin Sheen , Oprah , those who roll in the streets , yell at the camera's , on, and on and on . Their simple ,straight forward pay off is the attention gained from day to day rush of shock jockeying . Look at their regular all encompassing posts , do they say anything substantial , no . But they are always there . In color .
Pay them no attention , and they eventually blend with the wall paper . While the rest of the world attends to reality .
"Americans with good jobs, money in the bank, and early retirement aren't going to be eager to bite the hand that feeds."
Well there's your problem...you think government is 'the hand that feeds'? Yes, it does feed the ever-dependent class (like unemployed 'entertainers') with welfare and food stamps, but the money to do that comes from taxing capitalists. The 'hand that feeds' is capitalism, not government.
Of course an 'entertainer' has zero credentials to back up his silly claim that 100,000,000 well armed Americans, many of whom are current, reserves, or retired military, are too soft to fight for their rights.
Again, you very obviously are clueless on this and just trying to bluff your way through with pointless babbling about fat, lazy people and Snowden the traitor.
That's funny Will. How do you spell government? As anyone can see I did not identify the "hand". Did you know that people with masochistic tendencies will often purposely challenge those above their station? They apparently get a thrill out of being "owned" in public forums by the superior intellect.
As a matter of fact, the capitalist system is what drives the government. The government was founded on capitalism, theft, genocide, and murder, and so these elements are inextricably woven throughout the fabric of the United States, as well as the other squatter nations on this continent. You simply can't have one element without the other.
And who are the so-called capitalists that are being taxed? I am not aware of how the tax burden of the wealthy 1% compares to the majority. But I can only assume that the bulk of the taxes paid into the system are coming from the working class majority. At any rate, If you're referring to the majority as capitalists, then you are sorely mistaken. These are the members of the proletariat.
A member of the New England Patriots is quite distinct from a "fan", or supporter of the New England Patriots. It is the same when we consider capitalism. When we consider the Rothschilds, the Duponts, The Kennedys, Macys, Walmart, Sony, and McDonalds, we can hardly consider a day laborer, factory worker, or even the small business owner as a capitalist. They are the people who are sitting in the bleachers cheering for the home team. They are not members of the team, but only fans, supporters, and spectators.
And since you have brought up the matter of credentials, please let us see yours. Once your credentials have been verified, then perhaps you would like to prove your assertion that Americans are not soft.
If you do not like the Second Amendment, then repeal it. Otherwise, it's all smoke and hot air.
by Don Bobbitt 3 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by strengthcourageme 5 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by zzron 9 years ago
As a legal citizen of America, how do you feel about guns?
by Jeff Berndt 7 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by MR Black 7 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...
by Christin Sander 6 years ago
When is the right time to talk about gun control - NOT banning guns, but sensible controls?Why is it whenever the subject of gun control is brought up people get so hostile and angry about protecting guns at all costs? Do you need an assault weapon to hunt or protect your family? Isn't...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|