Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/4/2003 2:58:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:06:08 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Social Experiment originally titled: "Would You Support A Firearm Program..." ...where a firearm and supply of ammo was provided to US citizens and funded by tax dollars? The program would not be in realation to the military or militia (organized or unorganized) but participants who would receive firearms would be screened for criminal activity, etc. Poll Coming.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:01:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 3:03:11 PM EDT by OmegaMan]
What provision of the Constitution provides Gov't the power to spend public monies on this? Edited to add: He that provideth can taketh away?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:01:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 3:01:58 PM EDT by tommytrauma]
Kinda like the CMP meets the tooth fairy?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:22:25 PM EDT
I voted no but I would however donate money to a fund drive to teach or help provide firearms to people that couldn't afford there own.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:25:21 PM EDT
It might be a cost saving plan in the long run. Crime would go way down and the savings would be in law enforcement and litigation. Undertakers would get a lot of work untill the badguys figured out that there is a new boogey man out there. The armed citizen.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:29:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 3:33:31 PM EDT by Andreuha]
I wouldn't mind a FREE version of the CMP. But instead of used weapons, lets get unissued, current weapons. Ill even be happy to provide my OWN reflex sight and acc's on the M4A1. edit: oh, and the weapons should be legal for open-carry. Gotta have that for them to be effective. Btw, Peetmoss, You can start by donating to me [;D] Edit#2: Why not just bring back Gun-shops in schools, teach kids gun-saftey, and take em to the range? That would be money well spent on helping raise responsible adults.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:52:53 PM EDT
Er, no. It would be yet another huge, inefficient government program sucking away more of our money. We (the gun community) already have guns - should the government take our money to give us another gun? Who decides what model and how much ammo? What other strings might be attached to this? Should we rely on the government to give us the guns that we might need to use to overthrow it someday? Better ideas (IMHO, of course): A private foundation to give guns and training to high-risk people (battered women, honest people in poor neighborhoods, etc) Mandatory gun training in school. Don't touch programs in early elementary, basic safety and marksmanship in middle with electives for advanced marksmanship going on to high school. As part of Government schools or as some kind of accreditation requirement for private schools. Everyone who served in military, upon honorable discharge, has option to buy his issue weapons and other equipment. Reserves must keep issue weapons at their homes and perhaps remain proficient with them on their own time (freeing up official training time to train for group tactics and such). And allow military to surplus weapons, components, and ammo to civilians.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:56:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 4:00:49 PM EDT by bvmjethead]
He double L NO, get a job and buy your own gun. [size=6][red]I'M TIRED OF FUNDING EVERYBODY ELSE, WHEN AM I GOING TO GET FUNDED??????[/red][/size=6] I have to go out and work to buy everything I NEED and the things that I want. So should EVERYBODY else. [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [peep] This kind of stupid stuff just makes me want to cuss out loud. For crying out loud, when is enough going to be enough? ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY!!! Maybe.....MAYBE, when I get every single gun I want, I'll support this kind of stupid crap, untill then NO! NO MORE SUPPORT for ANYBODY![furious] [soapbox]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:03:08 PM EDT
[b]NO. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is everyone's Right. CHOOSING to Defend your Country and loved ones is called Taking Responsibility ![/b]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:19:57 PM EDT
These firearms you speak of, are these M-16's or 10-22's?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:32:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By G-CODE: These firearms you speak of, are these M-16's or 10-22's?
View Quote
Black Powder Muskets
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:38:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Oslow:
Originally Posted By G-CODE: These firearms you speak of, are these M-16's or 10-22's?
View Quote
Black Powder Muskets
View Quote
Damn, I guess I'll have to vote no on this issue.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:44:29 PM EDT
For the sake of argument assume a AR-15. Possibly surplus M-16s reconfigured to semi only and arsenal refinished.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 4:44:56 PM EDT
For the hardware? No. The software...as in...training? Bring your gun, we'll show you how to use it. Maybe a system that involves paying up front...and if you pass you will get your money back. For a quite hardened capitalist...I feel dirty for saying it...but... Yeah...I'd support publicly funded firearms training. Just as long as it was legitimate...unlike the B.S. class I took to get my CCW.
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: ...where a firearm and supply of ammo was provided to US citizens and funded by tax dollars? The program would not be in realation to the military or militia (organized or unorganized) but participants who would receive firearms would be screened for criminal activity, etc. Poll Coming.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:06:24 PM EDT
No, I'm not for much government funded anything. I'm curious to see where this is headed.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:15:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: He double L NO, get a job and buy your own gun. [size=6][red]I'M TIRED OF FUNDING EVERYBODY ELSE, WHEN AM I GOING TO GET FUNDED??????[/red][/size=6] I have to go out and work to buy everything I NEED and the things that I want. So should EVERYBODY else. [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][piss­ed] [peep] This kind of stupid stuff just makes me want to cuss out loud. For crying out loud, when is enough going to be enough? ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY!!! Maybe.....MAYBE, when I get every single gun I want, I'll support this kind of stupid crap, untill then NO! NO MORE SUPPORT for ANYBODY![furious] [soapbox]
View Quote
For further clarification, you would still be eligible (ie. "funded"). Existing firearm ownership would not be a disqualifying factor.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:19:51 PM EDT
Ahh........No. Kind of a strange question. I would however make saftey/firearms training mandatory for all kids in public school. No big deal,just like the one I took in 8th grade so I could get a hunting license.I think anyone under 17-18 had to take it to have a license.I think the minimum age was 12-13. I think it took like 2, hour long sessions on a couplea saturdays(run by a park ranger or game warden)and the last day we shot .22's. Every kid in this country otta have this minimal training so that they don't one day run across a firearm and point it in their friends face while pulling the trigger......just funnin around.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:10:27 PM EDT
There are a lot of people who truely should not have firearms, and that would just make it too easy for them to get them. Would this "funding" also support inner city service workers with free firearms? That could only work out perfectly. If you want a gun save for it and buy it yourself, I am also getting tired of sending money to people who don't deserve it.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:15:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 8:33:31 PM EDT
How's this... Instead of adding free stuff, why not remove charges? Make licensing free! In places like NYC, a pistol license costs in the hundreds (plus plus plus all the fingerprints and stuff on side), whereas in Nassau it only costs $40. the bar-none best thing to do with the money though, is to fund education programs... All that i'd like to see is a MANDATORY two-week saftey/training course in school that ends with a few trips to a shooting range and the option to take a test for whatever firearm permits the state allows. (this would be for High-school seniors, so they'd mostly be in the 18+ catagory). No need for all the extravogant stuff that would just suck money down the drain.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:04:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:48:40 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Interesting experiment. Nearly 20% (at the time of this post it was 19/81%) of what is generally the most pro freedom loving segment of our society would still support socialism IF it happens to benefit them. One can easily realize that the rest of the population who are far less familiar with the Consitution and the actual differences between socialism and freedom would have much higher numbers. Many of you still saw right through it and recognized the implications immediately. Basically, if we authorize the government to force everyone to support OUR issues we can expect the same in return. And that is how it happens. Nobody says "We'd like to institute socialism and strip you of your freedoms." They offer to get you something you "want" and have "others" fund it. And when enough people agree you are done. Some here, not recognizing the implications, were willing to do it just for a gun. Imagine how tantalizing "social reforms" were during the Depression. FDR knew and that was really the birth of socilism in this country.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:14:53 AM EDT
Sad, very sad. [b]HIJACK:[/b] Of course many here support killing viable, full-term fetuses during labor so I'm not surprised they'd support mere socialism. [;D]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:22:53 AM EDT
I supported it, and here's why. I looked at it as it relates to today's political environment. Now, if we didn't have any government programs, I don't think that I would be in favor of starting one just to hand out guns. HOWEVER, now days, we already have governmnet programs. Right now, my tax dollars fund gun control. If they're going to use my tax dollars either way, I would rather it be for something that benefits me instead of something that takes things away from me. (HIJACK: I do NOT support that killing of babies, born or otherwise.)
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:23:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:24:44 AM EDT by Torf]
I don't think that purchasing guns for every eligible person is necessairly socialism. This would surely provide for the common defense as is mentioned in the Constitution. Isn't this similair to how it works in Switzerland? At least in some respects, I wouldn't call it socialism. If everybody shot 1000 rounds a weekend for free, then I would call it socialism to a degree, but everybody would end up paying for it in the long run, and I would certainly rather see the government providing ammunition to it's citizens instead of wasting it on worthless crap, and executive ordered ammo incineration. BTW - I haven't voted yet, I want to see how these issues get hammered out. No knee-jerk reactions here...
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:29:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:34:33 AM EDT by dnra]
I might have just interperted your poll as "FREE GUNS FOR ALL" like the swiss when I voted and read only the first couple sentences. I've been known to jump the "gun" so'ta'speak. Its better than using "the tax money" for gold plated toilet seats!
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:46:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2003 8:47:35 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
You guys missed the qualifier in the original post: "The program would not be in realation to the military or militia (organized or unorganized)" It was not a provide for the common defense issue, it was a soclialist gun program. And the argument offered by Johnphin is the same argument used by others to justify their socialism. It wasn't my intent to entrap socialists here or make someone look bad. I was just demonstrating how easy it is to mask and market socialism. All you have to do is "offer" something the population, or a part of it, wants and many will gladly trade their freedoms for it. It is sometimes easy to miss, or just overlook, the fact that you simply cannot force others to fund what you like. Those who missed it this time, lost NOTHING. But they will now, hopefully, be better guarded in the future.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:54:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Sad, very sad. [b]HIJACK:[/b] Of course many here support killing viable, full-term fetuses during labor so I'm not surprised they'd support mere socialism. [;D]
View Quote
Yes but isn't it "socialism" to force us to pay for all those kids? Who do you think is getting abortions? Rich, well to do people with the means to easily raise children? Or is it often irresponsible Jerry Springer candidates who got 4 already. And take away socialism and now the kid will be abandoned by the parent (if they can't get food stamps and extra benefits), or completely neglected/starved. These people aren't responsible enough to put them up for adoption in most cases. And are you gonna adopt a crack baby whose mother was positive for Hapatitis? Abortion ain't a wonderful thing, but neither is me paying for all these welfare families. Especially in light of the fact that I can't afford to have my own kids yet.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:22:09 AM EDT
No. But I wouldn't have any problem with a law that said that if a company gets a contract to provide the gubmint with service rifles, that they have to sell them to the public at the same price uncle Sam pays.......-
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:47:42 AM EDT
No, but surplus and obsolete military equipment should be made available for sale to citizens.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 9:53:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: Basically, if we authorize the government to force everyone to support OUR issues we can expect the same in return.
View Quote
Exactly. [:(]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 10:21:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: You guys missed the qualifier in the original post: "The program would not be in realation to the military or militia (organized or unorganized)" It was not a provide for the common defense issue, it was a soclialist gun program.
View Quote
I'm not sure that you can seperate the universal ownership of weapons from the existance or relationship to any military or militia. Whether such relationship is codified or not, it becomes the case nevertheless... I don't think that forcing anyone to have a gun would be good, nor would free guns to unqualified persons. Unless your hypothetical gun giveaway were only allowed to be used for "fun" purposes, such as bump firing, and sideways shooting, any shooting activity WOULD contribute toward the common defense of the nation regardless of the original intent of the bill (gun-fanatic's wet dream). As it stands now, the government is wasting millions of dollars trying to prevent guns and ammunition from getting in responsible gun owners hands. They might as well spend the same amount instead on arming the people of the nation. Is the current system socialism? Tax dollars are being spent to try to keep us from being armed. How would the same money used to buy civilians guns be any more socialistic? Is our society too socialistic? Yes! Does the government spend too much? Yes! Does the government take too much? Yes!!! Should a federal gun ownership and training act be placed into the same category as welfare? Maybe, but only on a purely theroretical level. On a practical level, a taxpayer funded $400 tool/weapon would cost far less than a multi-trillion dollar "Great Society", and benefit this nation in a way never even conceived of by LBJ.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 11:06:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Sad, very sad. [b]HIJACK:[/b] Of course many here support killing viable, full-term fetuses during labor so I'm not surprised they'd support mere socialism. [;D]
View Quote
Yes but isn't it "socialism" to force us to pay for all those kids? Who do you think is getting abortions? Rich, well to do people with the means to easily raise children? Or is it often irresponsible Jerry Springer candidates who got 4 already. And take away socialism and now the kid will be abandoned by the parent (if they can't get food stamps and extra benefits), or completely neglected/starved. These people aren't responsible enough to put them up for adoption in most cases. And are you gonna adopt a crack baby whose mother was positive for Hapatitis? Abortion ain't a wonderful thing, but neither is me paying for all these welfare families. Especially in light of the fact that I can't afford to have my own kids yet.
View Quote
There's an interesting school of thought that the growth of the Gov't-welfare mentality, however well-intentioned it supposedly is, does in fact weaken the natural limitations on population growth of a society and encourages procreative growth beyond what would normally occur. We see this across the globe as well as in this country. As we export our "good will" in the form of food, medical aide and other assistance to countries across the continents who lack the skills and natural resources to support themselves, we see in its wake a population explosion that then cries out for even more - more than the welfare-state can sustain. [b]And so the welfare-state must THEN institute and encourage artificial population control measures like birth-control and abortion. [/b] The population problem of China is the epitome of this. With the onset of communism, all things were provided to the peasants so there was no natural inhibition on the number of children - food would be provided by the gov't, not the parents. Until there wasn't enough to go around so child-limits and infanticide became gov't policy to handle the problem CREATED by the welfare-state mentality. Communist Russia also was a hotbed of abortion-for-birth-control for similar reasons. Same can be seen in Socialist Europe and the welfare-class in America today.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 4:51:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: It wasn't my intent to entrap socialists here or make someone look bad.
View Quote
You caught some anyway; what are you going to do with 'em?
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 5:24:36 PM EDT
Awesome experiment.
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: ...All you have to do is "offer" something the population, or a part of it, wants and many will gladly trade their freedoms for it.
View Quote
YET ANOTHER HIJACK: Is "security" an example of something we've been "offered" with the Patriot Act(s) & so-called 'war on terror'? [peep]
It is sometimes easy to miss, or just overlook, the fact that you simply cannot force others to fund what you like. Those who missed it this time, lost NOTHING. But they will now, hopefully, be better guarded in the future.
View Quote
I hope so.
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 11:34:15 PM EDT
So, by this, are Police, Fire, Public Sanitation and highways also socialism? Is having a military socalism? All of this are things that benefit the whole country that Steyr AUG may not want to pay for? All goverment requires some degree of submission of the individuals desires. All goverments have to provide the organization and directon of basic services that individuals don't have the means to accomplish themselves. Your idea of socialism comes quite close to condemning all goverment period.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:11:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 12:20:31 AM EDT by Corporal_Chaos]
Such services as Interstate highways, fire and police departments are necessary for the nation to function as a first world country. Government mandates that would give people guns paid for by tax dollars are not; since we have a tax funded military, such a program would be providing a luxury service at the taxpayers expense. Unfortunately, taxes are a necessity in a non-anarchial society. The difference is in how said taxes are used. Is it for the clear benefit of individuals or does it provide government services for everyone. You see, not everyone qualifies for welfare, a social program, but to my knowledge, at least in theory, everyone has access to the highways, fire/rescue services, and law enforcement, which are also social programs but are of a different nature. Socialism that "gives" everything to individuals is bad; however, social programs that provide opportunities for everyone willing to work toward his or her goal are of a different nature and benefit the whole of society.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:25:14 AM EDT
To a certain extent, welfare programs do benefit everyone. You are basicly paying to not be robbed, the state is funneling money to people who would attempt to take your money by force. Some would succeed and there would be a whole lot of bloodshed either way. There are balance points though, if not enough people are not getting paid enough the violence still occurs. If too many people are getting paid too much when they could be earning a living then the system goes bankrupt.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:37:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 12:43:07 AM EDT by Corporal_Chaos]
Speaking from my experience, welfare supports primarily lazy ass baby machines. They're too lazy to work so they pump out kids to get as much government cheese as they can. I'm not that fearful of being robbed by some lazy ass bitch, and if someone shall try, I have the second amendment to defend myself. I say good riddance if the bodies shall pile up. It is my personal opinion that such people should be incarcerated and made sterile, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. *Edit to Add* In any case, the public transportation, sanitation, fire, and/or law enforcement has a much larger, proven benefit to all of our society than does welfare, and to compare them with welfare, as I get the impression you have done, shows, at least to me, an act of desperation to support your earlier arguement.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:04:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: So, by this, are Police, Fire, Public Sanitation and highways also socialism? Is having a military socalism? All of this are things that benefit the whole country that Steyr AUG may not want to pay for? All goverment requires some degree of submission of the individuals desires. All goverments have to provide the organization and directon of basic services that individuals don't have the means to accomplish themselves. Your idea of socialism comes quite close to condemning all goverment period.
View Quote
Quite possibly the stupidest thing you ever posted. As even you noted those thing benefit the entire country. Our objection to socialism is where things that benefit the "few" are paid for by the "many." Perhaps I should have referred to it as "class socialism" but I assumed everyone whould be educated enough to know what I was talking about. Nowhere did I define "my idea" of socialism nor did I ever condemn basic government structure. That is something you have made up on your own.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:06:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: To a certain extent, welfare programs do benefit everyone. You are basicly paying to not be robbed, the state is funneling money to people who would attempt to take your money by force. Some would succeed and there would be a whole lot of bloodshed either way. There are balance points though, if not enough people are not getting paid enough the violence still occurs. If too many people are getting paid too much when they could be earning a living then the system goes bankrupt.
View Quote
So I gotta PAY these bastards to not rob me?!? How about we just give terrorists money so they don't attack us? Maybe we should give Hitler what he wants and save him the trouble of invading countries by force. I heard you have a neighbor that wants to burn your house down, if you do it yourself he won't. I was wrong earlier, THIS is the stupidest thing you have ever written.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:09:50 AM EDT
Welfare is what happens when non-property owners are allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:12:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:45:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: To a certain extent, welfare programs do benefit everyone. You are basicly paying to not be robbed, the state is funneling money to people who would attempt to take your money by force. Some would succeed and there would be a whole lot of bloodshed either way. There are balance points though, if not enough people are not getting paid enough the violence still occurs. If too many people are getting paid too much when they could be earning a living then the system goes bankrupt.
View Quote
So I gotta PAY these bastards to not rob me?!? How about we just give terrorists money so they don't attack us? Maybe we should give Hitler what he wants and save him the trouble of invading countries by force. I heard you have a neighbor that wants to burn your house down, if you do it yourself he won't. I was wrong earlier, THIS is the stupidest thing you have ever written.
View Quote
LOL ok, whatever you wish to beleve Steyer. Fact is the concept of welfare, especally in THIS country where socialism is reviled, only got started to prevent bloodshed. Yes welfare CAN be used to manipulate and control the public, like in the socialised countries of Europe. But it is also Danegeld. When it was started here it was considered to be less expensive and safer that confronting and arresting people who were comitting crimes, stealing other peoples property and money to survive, and risking violence
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 11:09:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: To a certain extent, welfare programs do benefit everyone. You are basicly paying to not be robbed, the state is funneling money to people who would attempt to take your money by force. Some would succeed and there would be a whole lot of bloodshed either way. There are balance points though, if not enough people are not getting paid enough the violence still occurs. If too many people are getting paid too much when they could be earning a living then the system goes bankrupt.
View Quote
So I gotta PAY these bastards to not rob me?!? How about we just give terrorists money so they don't attack us? Maybe we should give Hitler what he wants and save him the trouble of invading countries by force. I heard you have a neighbor that wants to burn your house down, if you do it yourself he won't. I was wrong earlier, THIS is the stupidest thing you have ever written.
View Quote
We DO PAY TERRORISTS not to attack us. What do you think the billions of $$ to Egypt is for? For not attacking Israel. What do you think the billions of $$ to rebuild Afganistan is for? What do you think the billions of $$ for "Urban Renewal" is all about? Peace in da 'Hood. Frankly, I ArmdLbrl nailed it. I don't think it's right, but it's what we do.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 11:12:48 AM EDT
Supporting a hypothetical idea that you judge to be socialist does not make one a socialist.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 11:14:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Peetmoss: I voted no but I would however donate money to a fund drive to teach or help provide firearms to people that couldn't afford there own.
View Quote
I can't afford my own. 'Charity starts at home.' [;)]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:01:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: To a certain extent, welfare programs do benefit everyone. You are basicly paying to not be robbed, the state is funneling money to people who would attempt to take your money by force. Some would succeed and there would be a whole lot of bloodshed either way. There are balance points though, if not enough people are not getting paid enough the violence still occurs. If too many people are getting paid too much when they could be earning a living then the system goes bankrupt.
View Quote
So I gotta PAY these bastards to not rob me?!? How about we just give terrorists money so they don't attack us? Maybe we should give Hitler what he wants and save him the trouble of invading countries by force. I heard you have a neighbor that wants to burn your house down, if you do it yourself he won't. I was wrong earlier, THIS is the stupidest thing you have ever written.
View Quote
LOL ok, whatever you wish to beleve Steyer. Fact is the concept of welfare, especally in THIS country where socialism is reviled, only got started to prevent bloodshed. Yes welfare CAN be used to manipulate and control the public, like in the socialised countries of Europe. But it is also Danegeld. When it was started here it was considered to be less expensive and safer that confronting and arresting people who were comitting crimes, stealing other peoples property and money to survive, and risking violence
View Quote
And how that is different from giving Hitler the Sudetenland so he won't invade Czechoslovakia? And it still doesn't work. The majority of criminals are/were on public assistance. You cannot make bad people good by giving them handouts.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:06:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: We DO PAY TERRORISTS not to attack us. What do you think the billions of $$ to Egypt is for? For not attacking Israel. What do you think the billions of $$ to rebuild Afganistan is for? What do you think the billions of $$ for "Urban Renewal" is all about? Peace in da 'Hood. Frankly, I ArmdLbrl nailed it. I don't think it's right, but it's what we do.
View Quote
What do wee do?!? We let Israel deal with Egypt on whatever terms THEY choose. We bomb Afghanistan each and every time they fuck with us. Peace in the hood?!? Where?!? We build it, they burn it down. Fuck 'em. We have never had peace in the hood no matter how new the projects are. In every case, it doesn't work. The sooner people figure that out the better. You take criminals, terrorists, etc. OUT of the population. You keep doing it until there are no more.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:26:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnphin: I supported it, and here's why. I looked at it as it relates to today's political environment. Now, if we didn't have any government programs, I don't think that I would be in favor of starting one just to hand out guns. HOWEVER, now days, we already have governmnet programs. Right now, my tax dollars fund gun control. If they're going to use my tax dollars either way, I would rather it be for something that benefits me instead of something that takes things away from me.
View Quote
Let's just defund 'em. Vote no, everytime they ask for $$$, no matter what it is...
(HIJACK: I do NOT support that killing of babies, born or otherwise.)
View Quote
Damn Murderin' Child KILLER!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:34:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: You guys missed the qualifier in the original post: "The program would not be in realation to the military or militia (organized or unorganized)" It was not a provide for the common defense issue, it was a soclialist gun program. And the argument offered by Johnphin is the same argument used by others to justify their socialism. It wasn't my intent to entrap socialists here or make someone look bad. I was just demonstrating how easy it is to mask and market socialism. All you have to do is "offer" something the population, or a part of it, wants and many will gladly trade their freedoms for it. It is sometimes easy to miss, or just overlook, the fact that you simply cannot force others to fund what you like. Those who missed it this time, lost NOTHING. But they will now, hopefully, be better guarded in the future.
View Quote
Some of the Founders knew this, and mentioned it. Was it Jefferson who said something like "When the people realize they may vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, the Republic is doomed"??? I'm sure some of your socialist voters here have other "pet" programs.... Good post Steyer, I wish you'd left it longer before 'splainin' though.....
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:38:28 PM EDT
When I look at how much we pay in income property and inheritance tax And where it goes...(15 Billion for AIDs 50 Million to Arafat the other day) Free guns ...what the heck...as long as they are American made
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top