07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 163164165166167 ...
tools
  1. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I'm all ears err eyes. A couple of misconceptions that you could possibly clear up for me; if we are required to be licensed, maintain insurance, and annually register our vehicles, why can't we require the same for guns? How is a more strict background check an infringement of someone's rights? How does limiting how many rounds a magazine can hold an infringement as well?
    The reason those auto laws exist is because you have to drive on government owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want with no restrictions or requirements on private property if you choose. Just not public roads.

    I could get behind universal background checks(as long as some sort of private sale and gun show provisions are made) and a few other of the "common sense" gun control proposals if it were not for the fact that it would never stop there. We would never have a law for JUST background checks. It would be a law with 100-1000 other garbage requirements. The largest thing holding up any kind of gun legislation are the people trying to get it passed. Nothing is ever enough. And at a time when trust in the government is at an all time low...


    We entrust these entities to the public sector for the commonwealth of the community. If we entrust these types of entities to the private sector where profit is the main motive, what corners can we expect to be cut in an attempt to save money? The same should hold true for healthcare as far as I'm concerned. I don't want my health to be part of some equation on some insurance company's ledger. We're already seeing how "altruistic" the private sector can be when it comes to healthcare. Take all the crying over birth control. People claim that their morality dictates that it shouldn't be provided for by an employers healthcare provider because it violates their "moral code". Yet you don't hear the same argument being made for denying Viagra. To me Viagra, Cialis, and the other ED drugs are more indicative of a person's intentions to have recreational sex than birth control, especially when the birth control is being prescribed to someone that has heavy menstrual cycles and the birth control is a way of minimizing the symptoms. A man that's seeking Viagra is generally an elderly man who has no intentions of procreating, they just want a "good time". But since we live in a distorted society, no one questions why people believe birth control dispensing is a moral issue, but ED drug dispensing, that's a god send. And before any man claims "Well a marriage needs physical intimacy and sometimes that's not possible", you can't insist that one form of recreational sex is acceptable and another form isn't.
    I will never understand why birth control or viagra is a "healthcare" concern. If you need it, muster up the money for it. Dont require the tax payer or employer to pay for your sex habits that, last time i checked, had little to do with general health.

    On top of that, some religious groups do not believe in birth control. Requiring them to pay for it infringes on their rights whether you believe that the tax payer should pick it up or not.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    12-19-2013 11:40 AM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    The reason those auto laws exist is because you have to drive on government owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want with no restrictions or requirements on private property if you choose. Just not public roads.

    I could get behind universal background checks(as long as some sort of private sale and gun show provisions are made) and a few other of the "common sense" gun control proposals if it were not for the fact that it would never stop there. We would never have a law for JUST background checks. It would be a law with 100-1000 other garbage requirements. The largest thing holding up any kind of gun legislation are the people trying to get it passed. Nothing is ever enough. And at a time when trust in the government is at an all time low...
    The only problem that I can see with the provisions is those tend to turn into loopholes. When you consider a lot of the mass shootings take place in public locations, you can make an argument that a lot of the guns out there are introduced into public sector and thus should be subject to registration like vehicles. What gets me about the gun lobby is they don't even want to have any discussions.




    I will never understand why birth control or viagra is a "healthcare" concern. If you need it, muster up the money for it. Dont require the tax payer or employer to pay for your sex habits that, last time i checked, had little to do with general health.

    On top of that, some religious groups do not believe in birth control. Requiring them to pay for it infringes on their rights whether you believe that the tax payer should pick it up or not.
    I actually knew a woman that would have such horrible menstrual symptoms that she was rendered incapacitated for the most part because of her periods. Her doctor would prescribe birth control to help her cope with the symptoms. I'm not sure how easy it would be for a drug company to relabel those prescriptions something other than "birth-control", but I have a feeling that the fight over birth control is more about an employer being forced to cover their employee and not really about their 'moral belief'. I also think that sexual health should be something that's covered. What would happen if an employee contracted an STD? Could the employer fire the employee and strip them of their healthcare because the employee engaged in recreational sex? I'd personally hate to be subjected to my employer's moral code. There's just something tyrannical about it.
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    12-19-2013 12:11 PM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The only problem that I can see with the provisions is those tend to turn into loopholes. When you consider a lot of the mass shootings take place in public locations, you can make an argument that a lot of the guns out there are introduced into public sector and thus should be subject to registration like vehicles. What gets me about the gun lobby is they don't even want to have any discussions.
    Every state has restrictions about carrying weapons in public already...

    Any restriction implemented will NEVER be reverted. One miss step and a ban or regulation goes through that could cost gun owners significant rights and freedoms. It is more logical and safer at this point to flat out avoid the issue. Especially when the anti-gun complex is working to ban weapons completely. The trust is not there to compromise at the moment.


    I actually knew a woman that would have such horrible menstrual symptoms that she was rendered incapacitated for the most part because of her periods.
    I am VERY close to someone with this exact same issue, and i am fine with insurance covering the cost in this minority example as long as a doctor signs off on it. This has nothing to do with birth control being generally covered.


    Her doctor would prescribe birth control to help her cope with the symptoms. I'm not sure how easy it would be for a drug company to relabel those prescriptions something other than "birth-control", but I have a feeling that the fight over birth control is more about an employer being forced to cover their employee and not really about their 'moral belief'.
    Catholics have been against birth control forever. It is not an issue they are just now inventing.


    I also think that sexual health should be something that's covered. What would happen if an employee contracted an STD? Could the employer fire the employee and strip them of their healthcare because the employee engaged in recreational sex? I'd personally hate to be subjected to my employer's moral code. There's just something tyrannical about it.
    Forcing employer to provide a substance that they do not believe in has NOTHING to do with an employer firing someone over an employee doing something in their free time that they don't believe in. 2 completely separate topics.

    And if you generally do not trust your employer to do right by you in extreme circumstances, I suggest you find a new employer.
    12-19-2013 12:35 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    This country is full of computer hacks, ex-military experienced personnel and chemists just to name a few of potential problems.
    If the hackers, ex-military personnel, and chemists can match the US military, I would be impressed. I'm not sure if they would pose a significant threat, though. Do you have more details on what you have in mind?
    12-19-2013 12:43 PM
  5. anon5664829's Avatar
    If the hackers, ex-military personnel, and chemists can match the US military, I would be impressed. I'm not sure if they would pose a significant threat, though. Do you have more details on what you have in mind?
    Yeah the details are paranoia( or hope) the US government can destroy the country rather easily. Do you seriously think that the ex militias and scientists have the same level of access or can acquire the same level stuff as the real military or the Government?

    Maybe they could have a good rebellion I guess but they still don't stand a chance.

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-19-2013 02:14 PM
  6. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    If the hackers, ex-military personnel, and chemists can match the US military, I would be impressed. I'm not sure if they would pose a significant threat, though. Do you have more details on what you have in mind?
    Hackers alone could cause significant problems. U.S. military is extremely computer/technology codependent. Thus a large portion of a supposed advantage. And a few skirmish wins here or there would lead to civilians obtaining better weaponry.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-19-2013 02:38 PM
  7. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I'm all ears err eyes. A couple of misconceptions that you could possibly clear up for me; if we are required to be licensed, maintain insurance, and annually register our vehicles, why can't we require the same for guns? How is a more strict background check an infringement of someone's rights? How does limiting how many rounds a magazine can hold an infringement as well?

    As far as government provided healthcare goes, we have government provide us with policing and fire protection. If we were to turn our police departments and fire departments over to the private sector, what would happen if we were late on a payment to one of those departments? Would they not be required to intervene if we were victims of a crime? If our house was on fire and we hadn't paid our dues for that month, would the fire department be obligated to put out a fire?

    We entrust these entities to the public sector for the commonwealth of the community. If we entrust these types of entities to the private sector where profit is the main motive, what corners can we expect to be cut in an attempt to save money? The same should hold true for healthcare as far as I'm concerned. I don't want my health to be part of some equation on some insurance company's ledger. We're already seeing how "altruistic" the private sector can be when it comes to healthcare. Take all the crying over birth control. People claim that their morality dictates that it shouldn't be provided for by an employers healthcare provider because it violates their "moral code". Yet you don't hear the same argument being made for denying Viagra. To me Viagra, Cialis, and the other ED drugs are more indicative of a person's intentions to have recreational sex than birth control, especially when the birth control is being prescribed to someone that has heavy menstrual cycles and the birth control is a way of minimizing the symptoms. A man that's seeking Viagra is generally an elderly man who has no intentions of procreating, they just want a "good time". But since we live in a distorted society, no one questions why people believe birth control dispensing is a moral issue, but ED drug dispensing, that's a god send. And before any man claims "Well a marriage needs physical intimacy and sometimes that's not possible", you can't insist that one form of recreational sex is acceptable and another form isn't.

    Feel free to take your time. I threw a lot out there and the coffee is wearing off so I won't be proofreading....
    For one thing, you are talking of privileges when speaking of driving.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-19-2013 02:42 PM
  8. plumbrich's Avatar
    Americans take on military and loose are you serious?

    1st off a large portion of our men and women in uniform would go home to help defend their families. Most would bring with them anything that would be helpful including weapons and Intel. The vast majority of the militaries weapons are designed and made by civilian companies. They will have or know the means to incapacitate in a large part plus produce their own. So the military will basically be a shell of what it is today.

    We all know what two idiots in Boston did and the ensuing shut down of that city. Now that was just two idiots. So the remaining shell of a military does a few strikes and storm troopers through the streets. After a few skirmishes and photos of American citizen blown across a city street they just got another 100,000 enemies.

    Everyone wanting to fight the government lining up somewhere taking on the military is idiotic and might be some G.I. Joe wannabes dream for death. I believe it was Kennedy that had a study done on how many Americans fighting would it take to take down the Government and military I believe it was less than 7% of the population.

    Some perspective
    Afghanistan has approximately 1,000,000 guns in private hands. The government forces have approximately 52,000 and the police 70,000. The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,000 The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 2,700,000 firearms. Now add in the numbers of backyard shops turning out millions of homemade bombs and rocket propelled grenades and ammo is mind boggling. No military U.S or other would ever believe they could beat the American citizens in this way.
    12-19-2013 04:59 PM
  9. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Who needs guns when just one nuclear bomb from the Soviet Union can destroy a whole country?
    Who needs a nuclear bomb when a bullet from a sniper can take out any politician you like?

    I'm not advocating it, I'm just making a point.
    12-19-2013 06:44 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    FYI this is probably not the appropriate venue to fantasize about murdering innocent people. Not sure if you made the connection, but the soldiers and police officers, etc that you're so eager to gun down in the streets are citizens also, and more importantly, they're human. What's the point in lying about supporting the troops while dreaming up ways to ensure they themselves never do make it home to their families? The government isn't a faceless inhuman entity, but it's We The People.
    12-19-2013 07:04 PM
  11. JW4VZW's Avatar
    That's not what Joe Biden says... Sorry but they really need to lock him in a closet somewhere and gag him when he has to go into public. He has said some of the stupidest things...

    And on a related note. If you live outside of city limits(as i have most of my life), most places you can shoot all you want as long as it stays on your property, does not endanger others, ect.
    I miss those days...
    And I agree, Biden does say stupid things.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-22-2013 12:13 PM
  12. jaj324's Avatar
    Not sure if it was already mentioned, but I'd like to see an explicit voting rights amendment. Considering our government enacts a lot of laws that seems to favor special interest groups and how much some of our political entities try to erode votes via voting laws, I'd like to see some basic federal legislation that prevents states from stripping away voting rights.
    How would a state go about "stripping away voting rights"??

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-23-2013 07:22 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    How would a state go about "stripping away voting rights"??

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    Google search Jim Crow Laws.....Poll Tax....
    12-23-2013 09:51 PM
  14. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Google search Jim Crow Laws.....Poll Tax....
    I pretty sure what you are referring to is effectively dead. I mean good lord, you have people crying over having to take a trip to the court house to get a free photo ID before they can vote. A true poll tax would be blown up like a nuclear weapons by the national media.
    12-23-2013 10:51 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    I pretty sure what you are referring to is effectively dead. I mean good lord, you have people crying over having to take a trip to the court house to get a free photo ID before they can vote. A true poll tax would be blown up like a nuclear weapons by the national media.
    To me and you with access to our own personal transportation, it's no big deal, but to many people out there that don't have access to transportation, it's an affront to disenfranchising the poor, the sick, the elderly. I know you may find this hard to believe, but just because you have the means to cope with something, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Empathy, I invite you to go look it up.

    Also, go research the amount of voter fraud that actually takes place. These attempts at limiting what rarely exists to begin with, smells more like voter disenfranchisement to me.
    msndrstood likes this.
    12-24-2013 01:45 AM
  16. jaj324's Avatar
    To me and you with access to our own personal transportation, it's no big deal, but to many people out there that don't have access to transportation, it's an affront to disenfranchising the poor, the sick, the elderly. I know you may find this hard to believe, but just because you have the means to cope with something, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Empathy, I invite you to go look it up.

    Also, go research the amount of voter fraud that actually takes place. These attempts at limiting what rarely exists to begin with, smells more like voter disenfranchisement to me.
    I smell a Red Herring..

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-24-2013 04:42 AM
  17. jaj324's Avatar
    To me and you with access to our own personal transportation, it's no big deal, but to many people out there that don't have access to transportation, it's an affront to disenfranchising the poor, the sick, the elderly. I know you may find this hard to believe, but just because you have the means to cope with something, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Empathy, I invite you to go look it up.

    Also, go research the amount of voter fraud that actually takes place. These attempts at limiting what rarely exists to begin with, smells more like voter disenfranchisement to me.
    You probably think Joe Biden is a smart man.....

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-24-2013 04:46 AM
  18. anon8126715's Avatar
    I smell a Red Herring..

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    You probably think Joe Biden is a smart man.....

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    I gather from both of your posts that you have nothing to back up your position. Or are we at the stage in the discussion where go back and forth with slight jabs that fly just enough under forum rules because we've exhausted our mental capacity? Let me try....'I bet you think Glenn Beck is smart'. How'd I do? Now say something about how there isn't much evidence of voter fraud because it goes unreported, and then mention something about a family member telling you that they've heard about inner city gangs that require new recruits to have voted twice in a general election as some sort of gang initiation. oops sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself, you're right, this is more fun than actual intelligent conversation. Since we're dumbing things down, can I stop with all grammar and punctuation rules when addressing you specifically? I'm sure it's easier on you that way anyways. Ok, your turn.



    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    12-24-2013 05:35 AM
  19. jaj324's Avatar
    I gather from both of your posts that you have nothing to back up your position. Or are we at the stage in the discussion where go back and forth with slight jabs that fly just enough under forum rules because we've exhausted our mental capacity? Let me try....'I bet you think Glenn Beck is smart'. How'd I do? Now say something about how there isn't much evidence of voter fraud because it goes unreported, and then mention something about a family member telling you that they've heard about inner city gangs that require new recruits to have voted twice in a general election as some sort of gang initiation. oops sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself, you're right, this is more fun than actual intelligent conversation. Since we're dumbing things down, can I stop with all grammar and punctuation rules when addressing you specifically? I'm sure it's easier on you that way anyways. Ok, your turn.



    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    This is definitely NOT where we go back and forth. I don't have time to waste debating a false issue. Reality check, every American that meets the age and citizenship requirements has the legally protected right to vote. No matter their gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc.... PERIOD. To suggest otherwise is a lie propagated by race hustlers and welfare pimps like Al Sharpton. As for access, we all make choices in life. Some make better choices than others. We don't need laws to protect someone from the consequences of their own poor choices.

    There's two reasons why someone would argue that we need more voting laws. Either they aren't intelligent enough to see through the phony rhetoric or they are intellectually dishonest. Either way, I don't waste time debating a made up issue.
    12-24-2013 06:45 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    Either way, I don't waste time debating a made up issue.
    I think people can ask the candidates and their representatives for help. I will give an example. During the last presidential election, both Romney and Obama had volunteers to help with their respective campaigns. If people had problems voting, they could call the local campaign office of either candidate for assistance. I'm sure there would be volunteers that would help with transportation and voter registration.
    12-24-2013 08:11 AM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    I think only when you have a real weapon to back it up. Not sure most people can bluff that good.
    It probably depends on the person. Some people are just better at bluffing than others. (They're probably great at playing poker, too.)

    The scenario of displaying a weapon without firing it is very interesting. If displaying a weapon can deter crime, I would think that a concealed weapon would be less effective at deterring crime because criminals wouldn't know that an individual is armed. Of course, I am only referring to this one specific case where we are saying that the individual is not going to fire the weapon at all. I'm sure if the situation were to escalate, a concealed weapon is just as good as an openly carried one.
    12-24-2013 08:31 AM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    To me and you with access to our own personal transportation, it's no big deal, but to many people out there that don't have access to transportation, it's an affront to disenfranchising the poor, the sick, the elderly. I know you may find this hard to believe, but just because you have the means to cope with something, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Empathy, I invite you to go look it up.

    Also, go research the amount of voter fraud that actually takes place. These attempts at limiting what rarely exists to begin with, smells more like voter disenfranchisement to me.
    We had an entire thread about this a while back. The only credible argument that was produced against voter id's is the one you produced. The counter to that argument is that those same people have to make it to the polls somehow. The same arrangements can be made.

    There is no way to know how much fraud there actually is. People have to be caught committing fraud. With the low percentage of the population that votes anyway, it honestly be anything. If everyone actually showed up to vote, we would have a much better idea.
    12-24-2013 09:47 AM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    We had an entire thread about this a while back. The only credible argument that was produced against voter id's is the one you produced. The counter to that argument is that those same people have to make it to the polls somehow. The same arrangements can be made.
    No it's not the only creditable argument. You need to look at why the Justice Department is going after the North Carolina voter ID law so aggressively.

    There is no way to know how much fraud there actually is. People have to be caught committing fraud. With the low percentage of the population that votes anyway, it honestly be anything. If everyone actually showed up to vote, we would have a much better idea.
    Yes there is a creditable way to tell how much fraud there actually is. They have done investigations of voter fraud. It's not rocket science.
    12-24-2013 10:00 AM
  24. jaj324's Avatar
    No it's not the only creditable argument. You need to look at why the Justice Department is going after the North Carolina voter ID law so aggressively.

    because Eric Holder is a blithering ***** racist???
    12-24-2013 10:12 AM
  25. NoYankees44's Avatar
    No it's not the only creditable argument. You need to look at why the Justice Department is going after the North Carolina voter ID law so aggressively.



    Yes there is a creditable way to tell how much fraud there actually is. They have done investigations of voter fraud. It's not rocket science.
    Looked into it. Case seems to be primarily concerned with cutting early voting times, etc. The part about id's just because some other the number of people that don't have them are minority. Thus of course we have to make it a race issue. And the argument is still about having to get an ID, just like I stated.

    If I show up and vote for John doe, and John doe never shows up to vote himself, how would that be catch able? You are right, it is not rocket science.
    12-24-2013 10:16 AM
4,617 ... 163164165166167 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD