Bought a new gun

[John Baker]

Oops, I forgot to put that in green, I'll correct it.

John

 

[fgcason]

I'm surprised any of us feels the need for self defense weapons these days. With all the badges and guns everywhere, not counting our well paid police forces, what's to be afraid of?

That's a joke right?

When you're attacked, you're completely on your own, if citizens are around which is doubtful, they won't get involved in anything and law enforcement is at least an hour away IF you can get the call in before you're beat senseless.

 

[SCCutler]

Enjoyed reading this thread. I've only ever shot skeet. Loved it, though I completely suck at it.

Meanwhile, my mother, who is a former probation officer and a lawyer has a shotgun, which she keeps bedside, and loaded. Kind of scary when I came over one night to help her take out the trash and she came to the top of the stairs with the gun aimed at me said freeze or I blow you away. Once I started laughing she said, Oh Ben! It's you! How are you today?

That impressed me! (She's 72, and quite strong and capable, as you can see!)

Ben:

When we were assisting in moving my wife's Grandmother from her home (of 72 years!) to a retirement apartment last year, going through stuff in the bedroom, Grandmother says, "Oh, here's that pistol I like to keep around. Spike, do you want this?" She hands it to my sis-in-law, who hands it to me. It was some marginal-brand 22 revolver, but what got my attention was the fact that the hammer was back! God alone knows how long that gun had been sitting there in her headboard cupboard, hammer back. All kinds of "oops" available, there.

She was 102 at the time; already planning her 104th birthday party next February.

 

[spiderweb]

More breakins have been stopped with a shotgun full of bird-shot or a slightly rusty .38 revolver than all the laser-pointered high-cap tactical bonded JHP loaded 'ultimate home defense weapons' together.

I believe that. And my mother has had much more training with handguns. She just likes the weight, feel, and most importantly, size. She only shoots people who tick her off, anyway!

 

[spiderweb]

Ben:

When we were assisting in moving my wife's Grandmother from her home (of 72 years!) to a retirement apartment last year, going through stuff in the bedroom, Grandmother says, "Oh, here's that pistol I like to keep around. Spike, do you want this?" She hands it to my sis-in-law, who hands it to me. It was some marginal-brand 22 revolver, but what got my attention was the fact that the hammer was back! God alone knows how long that gun had been sitting there in her headboard cupboard, hammer back. All kinds of "oops" available, there.

She was 102 at the time; already planning her 104th birthday party next February.

Wow that's a great story! Well, at least it was ready to go in an emergency! In a way, an older lady fumbling around with a gun that's going off randomly is probably the scariest thing a thief could see.

That's awesome that she's going to be 104!

 

[kyleb]

Ben:

When we were assisting in moving my wife's Grandmother from her home (of 72 years!) to a retirement apartment last year, going through stuff in the bedroom, Grandmother says, "Oh, here's that pistol I like to keep around. Spike, do you want this?" She hands it to my sis-in-law, who hands it to me. It was some marginal-brand 22 revolver, but what got my attention was the fact that the hammer was back! God alone knows how long that gun had been sitting there in her headboard cupboard, hammer back. All kinds of "oops" available, there.

She was 102 at the time; already planning her 104th birthday party next February.

When we addressed my Grandparent's estate, my parents (who are not particularly firearm savvy) ended up with Grandad's firearms. One day I saw Grandad's Browning 12 GA autoloader in the closet and asked if they'd unloaded it when they brought it home. "Of course" was the answer.

I checked anyway. As it turned out, they had missed the round in the chamber.

 

[CollinLeon]

I've heard good things about them. I only own one Taurus, a PT145 Milpro in .45ACP and its been flawless. Its very compact for its capacity and way more accurate than it should be.

I own a few Taurus models -- both revolves and semi-autos... The first semi-auto of theirs that I bought was the PT111. I liked it well enough that when they came out with the PT140, I bought it and when they came out with the PT145, I also bought it. I figure that 11 rounds of .45ACP with Federal Hydroshocks is good enough for most social occasions. I also have a Taurus 617 7-shot .357 that is nice and compact for concealed carry and a Model 689 that I use with handloaded very low velocity rounds for handling pests (armadillos and such) around the house. I also have a SIG P229 in .357SIG that I sometimes carry. My favorites are probably my Kimber or Colt Combat Elite (both M1911 variants), but they are not that conducive to concealed carry except during weather that is cold enough to require a 3/4 length jacket.

 

[CollinLeon]

Unfortunately in my case, it's pretty much impossible to get all the states I travel to cover (New York City being the primary one that will never happen). But it is possible to get most of them covered.

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment says that we can carry whenever and wherever we want. Of course, to be technical, the 2nd Amendment is just reaffirming a natural born right of all free men on the planet since it is a RIGHT, not a 'privilege'.

 

[CollinLeon]

VASP uses .357 SIG to my knowledge. The VASP trooper troopers told me that the impact energy was similar to .40 S&W but with one or two more rounds. I've yet to find a .357 SIG that holds more rounds than a comparable .40 S&W.

That would be because the .357SIG round is basically a necked down .40SW case firing a 9mm bullet. For many .40SW handguns, you can switch to .357SIG by simply buying a new barrel. Your magazines do not need to be replaced since the brass is the same size. The .357SIG is a higher velocity round than the .40SW and thus it has a flatter trajectory. It also penetrates further which could be a pro or a con, depending upon the situation.

 

[Ted]

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment says that we can carry whenever and wherever we want. Of course, to be technical, the 2nd Amendment is just reaffirming a natural born right of all free men on the planet since it is a RIGHT, not a 'privilege'.

While I agree and can't figure out how state laws are allowed to trump the Constitution with any sort of legality (pretty sure the answer is they aren't), that's an argument that neither of us would win in court.

 

[CollinLeon]

I'm wondering how many of you, who do not pack as part of their livelihood, have ever actually had to use a weapon to defend your person or property here at home? Did you ever have to shoot someone while doing it?

I'm ex-military and as such, I've had a few different "travel destinations" -- some willing, some not... As such, I've been shot at, shot, and have shot. All in all, the first two are not all that fun and quite frankly, I prefer the "travel destinations" where none of them occur.

I am thinking that a serious knife is a whole lot more frightening than a gun to a miscreant, unless of course, he has a gun.

Never take a knife to a gun fight...

My personal experience is that a pistol grip 12-gauge tends to be a fairly good deterrent to the escalation of a situation by criminal. A strong voice directing him to lay on the ground along with the sight of the 12-gauge barrel was enough to keep me from having to shoot him. I prefer it this way -- I hate paperwork.

 

[ScottM]

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment says that we can carry whenever and wherever we want. Of course, to be technical, the 2nd Amendment is just reaffirming a natural born right of all free men on the planet since it is a RIGHT, not a 'privilege'.

So when the earth was formed and the first primordial ooz started to link up amino acids to form basic proteins it was the intention of the chaos to create firearms? That is certainly a new twist on the intelligent design theory.

 

[ScottM]

While I agree and can't figure out how state laws are allowed to trump the Constitution with any sort of legality (pretty sure the answer is they aren't), that's an argument that neither of us would win in court.

The lawyers can give you the legal reasons but the simple answer is that all rights are what we a society deem them to be. Furthermore, rights are not universal freedoms but a framework of societal rules and regulations. A right can and is regulated. For the 2nd amendment the feds allow states to have some say so over how it is enforced. The question of the 2nd amendment is easily answered in that it was so poorly written and that there was so much argument about it at the time of its writing, that to figure out intent is not clear.

If anyone thinks that rights are some immutable unchanging rules that can never be taken away you are mistaken. Luckily our society and our government believes in many of the same basic freedoms. But that could theoretically all change one day and poof! The Bill of Rights would not be worth the parchment it is printed on. Lest any of you think that your handguns and shotguns are a match for the power of the US Military you will be tank and UAV fonder pretty quick. Thankfully, our military is a reflection on us the people and that is extremely unlikely to happen. But it theoretically could.

BTW here is the latest SCOTUS ruling on gun rights: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
It deals with the Chicago gun ban that was overturned earlier this year and starting on page 2 has some really interesting stuff in it about how states are allowed to regulate guns.

 

[CollinLeon]

So when the earth was formed and the first primordial ooz started to link up amino acids to form basic proteins it was the intention of the chaos to create firearms?

Close... Actually, it was when the Big Bang occurred... Otherwise, why would it be called the "Big Bang"?

 

[CollinLeon]

Furthermore, rights are not universal freedoms but a framework of societal rules and regulations

Privileges can be regulated, rights are inalienable. Unfortunately, repressive governments tend to treat rights as privileges... Things like the Privilege of Religion (i.e. Waco)... Things like the Privilege of Speech (i.e. Tiananmen Sqare, TSA checkpoints, etc)... The Right to Bear Arms is a universal right of all free men. It is often usurped by repressive regimes, but it doesn't make what they do right.

 

[ScottM]

Privileges can be regulated, rights are inalienable. Unfortunately, repressive governments tend to treat rights as privileges... Things like the Privilege of Religion (i.e. Waco)... Things like the Privilege of Speech (i.e. Tiananmen Sqare, TSA checkpoints, etc)... The Right to Bear Arms is a universal right of all free men. It is often usurped by repressive regimes, but it doesn't make what they do right.

That is you opinion but it is not backed up by anything other than rhetoric. I wrote this earlier today in another thread and it is true hear as well:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a definitive resource, a right is:
"The standard of permitted and forbidden action within a particular sphere; law; a rule."

This definition supports my early description of a right as something that a society would define for itself.

The right as something that is to be free of interference of is also not supported as a consensus view. Again the OED tells us that "The law of any city or state regulating the private rights and duties of the inhabitants; also used in other senses of civil. " Clearly a right is something that is regulated. We can even see in our own society that it as such. Freedom of speech is regulated. We cannot scream 'fire' in a crowded theater nor can we say the 7 dirty words on a broadcast that takes place on the public airways.

The OED has states that the etymology of that definition is not modern at all. That a right is a regulated privilege is something that has been with us for many a century. In our country the Founders could have easily have not written a Bill of Rights. Indeed many thought that the principle of such a document ran counter to the role of the government. But that view lost out. The very writing of the Bill of Rights shows us that rights are what we as a society deem at any point to be a right. If right are inalienable then there would be no need to write of 'inalienable rights'.

The idea of inalienable rights is something that was first postulated in the age of enlightenment. That is why you hear the term used in Jefferson's document, the Declaration of Independence. But do note that while Jefferson made reference to those inalienable rights in that document that has no legal basis in our country's laws he only singled out a few of the rights that he considered inalienable and not one of the ones he named were directly about owning firearms. One of those named rights by Jefferson is life. But anyone with a gun could deny you of your so called inalienable right to life. So how inalienable is that right in reality? The fact is the USA government could take away all of our rights with the swipe of a pen. Those rights are only allowed to exist because we as a society deem them to be important. If the government were to try and take them away there is not some great overlord that would swoop down and stop them. Inalienability of a right is a myth and a philosophy but it is nothing more that a cultural consensus of a privilege.

 

[CollinLeon]

The very writing of the Bill of Rights shows us that rights are what we as a society deem at any point to be a right.

The Bill of Rights does not grant us those rights, it just reiterates what are natural born rights of free men. Even if it had not said those things, it does not mean that we were not born with those rights. The Founding Fathers thought that it was important enough to reiterate it. As such, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a universal human right of all free men and any attempt by the government to restrict said right is obviously unconstitutional since it is by definition an attempt to infringe upon said right.

"What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the government too stupid to understand?"

 

[ScottM]

The Right to Bear Arms is a universal right of all free men. It is often usurped by repressive regimes, but it doesn't make what they do right.

In Europe the right to bear arms is very restrictive are Europeans not a free people? They chose to not have that as a right. If the right to bear arms is universal should not all free people on this planet have that right? Or perhaps it is just that Americans have deemed it a right and it is no more universal than driving on the right side of the road as the proper side.

 

[CollinLeon]

In Europe the right to bear arms is very restrictive are Europeans not a free people? They chose to not have that as a right. If the right to bear arms is universal should not all free people on this planet have that right? Or perhaps it is just that Americans have deemed it a right and it is no more universal than driving on the right side of the road as the proper side.

Their regimes are a bit more repressive than our regime. Both are repressive, theirs only a bit more so...

 

[ScottM]

Their regimes are a bit more repressive than our regime. Both are repressive, theirs only a bit more so...

I have lived in Europe and found that there are many freedoms that they have that we do not. But I think you will agree that theirs is not as a whole less or more regulatory than ours. I do reject the notion that we live in a repressive regime. The USA is regulated based on the needs of the people. The beauty of our system of government is that the entire legislature can be thrown out of office every six years. Our elections allow us to change the face of government almost at will. Every two year the chamber of the people can be changed and 1/3 of the chamber of the state. We have even deemed it important to change the make up of the chamber of the state to be directly elected by the citizens of that state. With that type of turnover possible it is inconceivable that the will of the people is not what is being legislated.

But even so that does little to support your argument that the right of gun ownership derives from some greater power than the people themselves. Indeed all that is required in our country to change a law is the will of the people. Not too long ago the people deemed it important to regulate what a citizen consumes as drink and passed a law that would seem to defy the inalienable idea that one could eat or drink as they will. With the swipe of a pen and some procedures one could not buy alcohol. Then a few years later when a great thirst was upon us, we decided to reinstate that right.
This is a great example of how rights are at the whim of society.

 

[CollinLeon]

I do reject the notion that we live in a repressive regime.

Well, you do live in Illinois, so that probably colors your point of view somewhat. If you lived in Texas and then moved to Illinois, you would be more able to realize how repressive your state's rules might be with respect to your inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Even here in Texas though, we have had many unconstitutional restrictions placed upon our 2nd Amendment rights. These have mainly occurred since the War of Northern Aggression when our rights were stripped by the Yankee carpetbaggers, the imperialistic Union occupation forces, and their puppet state governments. Only recently have we finally started to throw off the vestiges of that period of our history.

 

[Ted]

The lawyers can give you the legal reasons but the simple answer is that all rights are what we a society deem them to be. Furthermore, rights are not universal freedoms but a framework of societal rules and regulations. A right can and is regulated. For the 2nd amendment the feds allow states to have some say so over how it is enforced. The question of the 2nd amendment is easily answered in that it was so poorly written and that there was so much argument about it at the time of its writing, that to figure out intent is not clear.

The funny thing is that the only people I've heard say it's poorly written are people in favor of restricting what it says. I find the Constitution to be a pretty well-written and easy-to-understand document. However, you are correct that the rights as defined in it can be changed at the will of the lawmakers. Part of why it's such a well-written document is that it allows for that to occur. The use of the amendment capbilities are not used nearly often enough for the numbers of restrictions that the government places, especially at the state level.

If anyone thinks that rights are some immutable unchanging rules that can never be taken away you are mistaken. Luckily our society and our government believes in many of the same basic freedoms. But that could theoretically all change one day and poof! The Bill of Rights would not be worth the parchment it is printed on.

Therein lies the problem: rather than making amendments and changing the Constitution properly, people tell the government to just ignore it entirely and allow the lawmakers to make laws at whim. The lawmakers, doing what the people say, then ignore the Constitution. "Poof" has already occurred, it's just not gotten to the point where most people are willing to do anything besides complain about it on the internet, in part because I'd say things are working in something of a give-and-take. More restrictions in certain areas, fewer in others.

 

[Ted]

I have lived in Europe and found that there are many freedoms that they have that we do not.

Curious, what do you think those are? My mom splits her time between New York City and France. About the only thing that is arguably better in France is that she can buy medications for a fraction of the cost of America (that's actually where she goes and gets her prescriptions filled). Beyond that, I find the country to be disfunctional on a good day, and chaos on a bad day.

With that type of turnover possible it is inconceivable that the will of the people is not what is being legislated.

That's simply not accurate. It's the will of whoever is elected, who is supposedly representing the people. But we all know that it's the lesser of the two evils in reality, because you don't have candidates who actually fit the will of the people. If you have two candidates, and their platforms are:

1) "I will kill all babies!"
2) "I will kill all puppies!"

Neither is good, people will end up voting for whichever platform they find less objectionable.

But even so that does little to support your argument that the right of gun ownership derives from some greater power than the people themselves. Indeed all that is required in our country to change a law is the will of the people. Not too long ago the people deemed it important to regulate what a citizen consumes as drink and passed a law that would seem to defy the inalienable idea that one could eat or drink as they will. With the swipe of a pen and some procedures one could not buy alcohol. Then a few years later when a great thirst was upon us, we decided to reinstate that right.
This is a great example of how rights are at the whim of society.

And if there was an amendment passed that said "The possession of all firearms shall be illegal," then I'd complain on the internet, but leave it at that. The example you give of prohibition was an example of how things ought to work, not how they do work.

On that note, Scott, go start a new thread in Spin Zone so you and our friend from the Republic of Texas can battle this out and not put my thread in there. I've waived my right to participate there.

 

[ScottM]

Well, you do live in Illinois, so that probably colors your point of view somewhat.
[/

Nice strawman but completely not germane to the topic at hand

If you lived in Texas and then moved to Illinois, you would be more able to realize how repressive your state's rules might be with respect to your inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

I lived in San Angelo, TX before I moved to Illinois and I have not experienced one bit of what you presume to be true.

Even here in Texas though, we have had many unconstitutional restrictions placed upon our 2nd Amendment rights. These have mainly occurred since the War of Northern Aggression when our rights were stripped by the Yankee carpetbaggers, the imperialistic Union occupation forces, and their puppet state governments. Only recently have we finally started to throw off the vestiges of that period of our history.

So you agree that in order to change a right all one has to do is change the law? If what you wrote is something that you believe then you cannot also believe in inalienable rights.

 

[Ddayle]

These have mainly occurred since the War of Northern Aggression when our rights were stripped by the Yankee carpetbaggers, the imperialistic Union occupation forces, and their puppet state governments. Only recently have we finally started to throw off the vestiges of that period of our history.

I personally have no problem with Texas seceding and becoming a third world nation. Once separated the Mexicans can assert their legal claim and retake Texas( Or try) while the 49 state USA watches. The 49state USA could make $ selling weapons to both sides. BYE TEXAss. No sorrow here. Dave(been there & hated it) P.S. back on the thread, I carry a S&W 442, .38 P+ lightweight hammer-less.. fits easily in a pants pocket & I have it 24/7. nothing more useeless that a gun you do not have, unless it is Gas you did not put in the tank of your(now) gliding aircraft. DR

 

[ScottM]

Curious, what do you think those are?

Travel for one. Far easier to travel internationally than in the USA. Just to get to Mexico these days you need a passport. I easily traveled between countries in Europe without having to produce papers or subjecting myself to sexual assault by people not smart enough to flip burgers.

I would also say the right of speech is protected far more of there than here. The people in the USA wish to allow private entities to be allowed to limit speech. In Europe the right to free speech is being extended so that people can speak out against things like their employers.

The right to health care is another big one. We as a society do not generally think of health care as anything other than a perk when you have enough wealth to afford it.

Those are but a few.

That's simply not accurate. It's the will of whoever is elected, who is supposedly representing the people.

If we as a people elect people who say one thing but do another and then keep reelecting them do we not get what we deserve? Ultimately the people of the US have to take personal responsibility for the government they elect.

But we all know that it's the lesser of the two evils in reality, because you don't have candidates who actually fit the will of the people. If you have two candidates, and their platforms are:

1) "I will kill all babies!"
2) "I will kill all puppies!"

Neither is good, people will end up voting for whichever platform they find less objectionable.

More than two people can run for a office and as Sen. Murkowski showed this last election, write in is a viable alternative. I too was elected to an office via write in.

If all you ever see are two candidates and neither represents your view then there is one other alternative. That is your view is in the extreme minority.



And if there was an amendment passed that said "The possession of all firearms shall be illegal," then I'd complain on the internet, but leave it at that. The example you give of prohibition was an example of how things ought to work, not how they do work.

On that note, Scott, go start a new thread in Spin Zone so you and our friend from the Republic of Texas can battle this out and not put my thread in there. I've waived my right to participate there. [/QUOTE]

 

[CollinLeon]

So you agree that in order to change a right all one has to do is change the law? If what you wrote is something that you believe then you cannot also believe in inalienable rights.

No, just because they have created a "law" doesn't mean that it is constitutional or even right. If they created a "law" that banned your religion, would you change religions? If they said that you would only worship a particular deity, would you change deities?

 

[CollinLeon]

Travel for one. Far easier to travel internationally than in the USA. Just to get to Mexico these days you need a passport.

I spent a week in Mexico awhile back and didn't have a passport. Mexico doesn't care whether you have a passport to get there. Texas was willing to accept my driver's license to get back... Then again, the last time I got a driver's license, I had to show proof of citizenship and I used a passport...

I easily traveled between countries in Europe without having to produce papers or subjecting myself to sexual assault by people not smart enough to flip burgers.

So, you're saying that Europe has better educated gropers?

I would also say the right of speech is protected far more of there than here. The people in the USA wish to allow private entities to be allowed to limit speech. In Europe the right to free speech is being extended so that people can speak out against things like their employers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Germany has provisions that make certain books and such about Nazis illegal.

The right to health care is another big one. We as a society do not generally think of health care as anything other than a perk when you have enough wealth to afford it.

So, you're saying that you support a socialized health care system?

OK... Now I understand your other beliefs... You probably voted for Bama-Boy also, right?

 

[Ted]

Travel for one. Far easier to travel internationally than in the USA. Just to get to Mexico these days you need a passport. I easily traveled between countries in Europe without having to produce papers or subjecting myself to sexual assault by people not smart enough to flip burgers.

I would also say the right of speech is protected far more of there than here. The people in the USA wish to allow private entities to be allowed to limit speech. In Europe the right to free speech is being extended so that people can speak out against things like their employers.

The right to health care is another big one. We as a society do not generally think of health care as anything other than a perk when you have enough wealth to afford it.

Those are but a few.

I'll file those in my box, but on the whole disagree. SZ material.

If we as a people elect people who say one thing but do another and then keep reelecting them do we not get what we deserve? Ultimately the people of the US have to take personal responsibility for the government they elect.

More than two people can run for a office and as Sen. Murkowski showed this last election, write in is a viable alternative. I too was elected to an office via write in.

While possible, that is a gross oversimplification of how it actually works (as was my example, but mine was to illustrate a point). Looking at the matter realistically (for the vast majority of elections), what you see on the ballot is what you're going to get in office.

If all you ever see are two candidates and neither represents your view then there is one other alternative. That is your view is in the extreme minority.

Plausible, but what I've noticed is that one represents part of what I view, the other represents another part, and neither represent the whole (even taking the best from both). That's what I get for walking down the double yellow line - get hit by cars going both ways. So I, like most people I believe, pick the one who represents the most important things, and accept the negatives that come with that candidate.

 

[Ddayle]

So, you're saying that you support a socialized health care system?

OK... Now I understand your other beliefs... You probably voted for Bama-Boy also, right?

other than greed why would any compassionate person NOT support the health of those in his own nation? Dave ( yes, I cast my vote against fascism & for America & Obama)DR

 

[ScottM]

I spent a week in Mexico awhile back and didn't have a passport. Mexico doesn't care whether you have a passport to get there. Texas was willing to accept my driver's license to get back... Then again, the last time I got a driver's license, I had to show proof of citizenship and I used a passport...

It must have been a long time ago. The US law is that you are now required to have a passport to go to Mexico or Canada and several other places. That is a post 911 thing
http://www.dhs.gov/files/crossingborders/travelers.shtm

So, you're saying that Europe has better educated gropers?

yep

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Germany has provisions that make certain books and such about Nazis illegal.

That they do. Do you know how many challenges to banning books we have in the US each year? A lot more than Germany, I can tell you that.

So, you're saying that you support a socialized health care system?

I already do as I reap the benefits of it. I am in the VA Health Care system a socialized health care system. But that is not germane to this thread and any further discussion on the merits of such a system is inappropriate for this forum. But suffice it to say health care has been deemed a right in most places on this globe. In far more places than gun ownership has been deemed a right.

OK... Now I understand your other beliefs... You probably voted for Bama-Boy also, right?

Not germane to the topic at hand. If you cannot carry the discussion by supporting your argument then perhaps you need to reevaluate your platform. A right is what it is based on societal will. That is the argument at hand. A political platform does not change that trueism. What it could change is what each group deems a right.

 

[ScottM]

Plausible, but what I've noticed is that one represents part of what I view, the other represents another part, and neither represent the whole (even taking the best from both). That's what I get for walking down the double yellow line - get hit by cars going both ways. So I, like most people I believe, pick the one who represents the most important things, and accept the negatives that come with that candidate.

That is what a republic is all about, not getting everything one wants and trying to get the best fit. Consensus is what we strive for in our system and that really means no one gets everything they want but they should try and respect each other. Far too often, and this is not new BTW, one group will act like the world is coming to an end if they do not get exactly what they want. The 2 year old attitude is alive and well and has been that way since as long as there were governments. I think those that have a more mature attitude and understand the give and take of society tend to be better adjusted and lead a happier existence.

 

[CollinLeon]

other than greed why would any compassionate person NOT support the health of those in his own nation?

And why should it be the responsibility of those who have worked hard to provide for those who refuse to work hard? Socialism does not work. Even Russia has figured that one out.

Dave ( yes, I cast my vote against fascism & for America & Obama)DR

Well, considering how the latest TSA gropers are doing, it would appear that your vote didn't really go the way that you wanted it to...

I guess it's a good thing for you that you didn't let the small matter of Bama-Boy not being legally able to hold the office stop you from voting for him...

 

[Ddayle]

And why should it be the responsibility of those who have worked hard to provide for those who refuse to work hard? Socialism does not work. Even Russia has figured that one out.



.

excuse me???Russia is still a socialist nation, what changed was the politics not the economics. Socialism is an economic policy communism is a political policy. Russia changed it's politics more than it economics's Democratic socialism does work. look at democratically socialist UK. or most of democratically socialist Europe. Please learn the difference between political ideas and economic ideas. Dave

 

[Ted]

That is what a republic is all about, not getting everything one wants and trying to get the best fit. Consensus is what we strive for in our system and that really means no one gets everything they want but they should try and respect each other. Far too often, and this is not new BTW, one group will act like the world is coming to an end if they do not get exactly what they want. The 2 year old attitude is alive and well and has been that way since as long as there were governments. I think those that have a more mature attitude and understand the give and take of society tend to be better adjusted and lead a happier existence.

I'd say here we're in agreement, but from your earlier statements that was not at all evident.

 

[Ddayle]

And why should it be the responsibility of those who have worked hard to provide for those who refuse to work hard?


..

Isn't this pure greed? how about those unable to work at all> will you let them starve too? such as the children of the 'lazy'? Why do you assume that those in need are lazy? you remind me of my father in law who constantly spouted about those who could not or did not raise themselves up by their own bootstraps. Like him you seem to overlook the fact they have no boots! Dave

 

[CollinLeon]

It must have been a long time ago. The US law is that you are now required to have a passport to go to Mexico or Canada and several other places. That is a post 911 thing
http://www.dhs.gov/files/crossingborders/travelers.shtm

Nope... Last year, if I remember correctly... I rode my Harley down there and spent a week in northern Mexico...

I already do as I reap the benefits of it. I am in the VA Health Care system a socialized health care system. But that is not germane to this thread and any further discussion on the merits of such a system is inappropriate for this forum. But suffice it to say health care has been deemed a right in most places on this globe. In far more places than gun ownership has been deemed a right.

Do you think that the VA Health Care System is a socialized heath care system? I'm not so sure... I figure it to be something that I earned due to my military service. We did not get paid a lot back then and it is probably the only benefit that we get out of it. Not that I take advantage of it, but I don't begrudge those who do...

Not germane to the topic at hand. If you cannot carry the discussion by supporting your argument then perhaps you need to reevaluate your platform. A right is what it is based on societal will. That is the argument at hand. A political platform does not change that trueism. What it could change is what each group deems a right.

It is my experience that if someone voted for Bama-Boy, then their thought processes are different enough that trying to have a discussion on political issues is pretty much impossible. I'm not saying that I actually liked McCain. He was way too liberal for my taste. Then again, so was Bush... As far as I'm concerned, the NRA is full of liberals!

 

[CollinLeon]

Isn't this pure greed? how about those unable to work at all> will you let them starve too? such as the children of the 'lazy'? Why do you assume that those in need are lazy? you remind me of my father in law who constantly spouted about those who could not or did not raise themselves up by their own bootstraps. Like him you seem to overlook the fact they have no boots! Dave

Greed is Good... It's one of the things that has made us into a world superpower. One could even argue that at this point, we're the only world superpower. Where is your father-in-law from?

 

[Ddayle]

And why should it be the responsibility of those who have worked hard to provide for those who refuse to work hard? .

this is also an non-supportable idea. the facts are that many/most of the working poor work much harder than the average person, and remain poor! just how hard is your job? How hard do you sweat each day/ do you work two or three jobs and still cannot afford to own a home or have health care? sorry , I seriously doubt you work as hard as most of the people you marginalize.. Dave

 

[ScottM]

Nope... Last year, if I remember correctly... I rode my Harley down there and spent a week in northern Mexico...

That is not what the law currently states.

Do you think that the VA Health Care System is a socialized heath care system? I'm not so sure...

It is government health care, without any payment often times given in government provided health facilities by doctors who are employment by the government. It is a form of socialized medicine anyway you cut it.

It is my experience that if someone voted for Bama-Boy, then their thought processes are different enough that trying to have a discussion on political issues is pretty much impossible. I'm not saying that I actually liked McCain. He was way too liberal for my taste. Then again, so was Bush... As far as I'm concerned, the NRA is full of liberals!

I voted for Reagan twice, Dole, and Bush I twice. Given your bad track record in judging my residency what does this electoral history tell you?