-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
democrats for gun ownership
- Thread starter Cerfur
- Start date
I agree with that (in particular because it describes many Republicans as well), but more important than the principle at issue here is the proof in the pudding...
You can believe all you like, but who do you put in office with your party affiliation, donation dollars and finally votes?
There have certainly been high profile and long-standing failures of Republicans and the NRA from GCA68 to FOPA86 and again with Mittens, but frankly, they have been the exception to the rule of day-in-day out republican legislatures across the country.
The defense presented for Democrats on this issue in this thread is valid in that there are catastrophic failures in gun rights that can be attributed to certain Republicans as well as Democrats...
BUT
When you look at the bigger picture - state and local where most gun laws are written - the difference between the parties becomes more apparent and frankly the impact on daily life more tangible and caustic.
MOST of the gun laws I run into during my day-to-day activities are state and local, not federal. The Feds don't control MA storage laws, AWB, rosters, castle doctrine, etc... So, you have to look to the state to see the source of those. They were either written and enacted by Democrats or to appease them.
I disagree with this. Lumping healthcare in with national defense is ridiculous. The other things you mention are debatable, as they could be achieved with or without government. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Private industry can do just fine with healthcare. If you argue it doesn't now, I argue that healthcare is hardly private because of all the rules, reguations, and control the government has on it. The only thing I see in the way of a real private system is an overbearing government.
Bill Nance said:
They have a place for this mindset already.. England.
Healthcare worked fine before the .gov got involved. Streets, sewers, police, and fire should be (and mostly are) controlled on a local level, and could (should) be easily privatized.
The only place you've got this right (when measured against a free society) is with the national defense. That's clearly provided for in the founding documents. While not perfect, these are the least restrictive of anything else on the books, and should be the yardstick against which any law, tax, treaty, etc is measured.
Healthcare didn't work before and it doesn't work now.
In terms of how much money we put into it vs what we get out of it we fail hard compared to other first world countries (except when it comes to things like cancer care).
Before Obamacare, we were throwing tons of money down the toilet. Now we're paying the government to throw money down the toilet for us. It doesn't really change much on a national scale.
I'm referring to "the old days." That crazy time when you paid the doctor for your visits and insurance was available - if you wanted to purchase it - for disasters rather than mandated for everything. When the .gov stuck their nasty, meddling fingers into things it all went downhill.
Removing the government completely from healthcare and letting the free market do what free markets do - which is price adjust properly over the course of time - is the only way to right the ship. The .gov has absolutely no business in healthcare, or any other industry save defense.
Yes, but WHY didn't it work?
The socialists are trying to tell you that it was because "the free market failed"TM but in reality, it is the accumulation of 80+ years of creeping socialist policies from social security, to medicare, to insurance regulation, etc... that led to its failure.
We did not have a free market in healthcare prior to ObamaCare - not by a long shoot.
We had/have an oligarchy of insurance companies and the medicare system which operate as a government sanctioned and protected anti-trust machine (price fixing, collusion and market exclusion - you name the anti-trust violation, they are doing it).
They keep new players out.
They keep cross-state competition out.
They keep alternate methods of providing for your healthcare costs out.
They artificially inflate prices of some services and collude to ensure we cannot shop for price.
Then they take out the other leg with decades of silly tax schemes that have encouraged people to do something very dumb (bundle their health insurance through their employer).
Our government has systematically destroyed the free market and legislated, bit by bit, the theft of our money to pay into this system for the sake of the connected few.
The free market didn't fail. It was killed by FDR and all the policies (OF BOTH PARTIES) representing the socialist takeover of our system that has been going on since then.
Last edited:
s4mt3k
NES Member
Last edited by a moderator:
What we really need is for people to stop voting of all these fools....nothing will change until A: The Federal Govt's checks start bouncing or B: The first state secede's from the union ..there is a longshot C: that the people wake up but I don't see that happening before A or B.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Imagine how expensive your auto insurance would be if it covered oil changes, tires, transmissions, etc. The reason health insurance doesn't work is because it's not insurance. Insurance is for extremely large loses, not for day-to-day expenses.
dcmdon
NES Member
Mike,
If you take the D's respect for personal liberties as they relate to the 4th and 5th Amendments and add in the R's respect for the 2nd Amendment and then mix in some respect for the 1st and 10th (which neither party respects), you end up with a libertarian.
If I want to Bang my buddy bob while watching a german scheisse video, while smoking dope, surfing the web looking at web sites with instructions on bomb building, and simultaniously burning a flag, its none of my governments business.
The R's want to make it your government's business.
And if I want to make boat loads of money while amassing hundreds of guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition as the fruits of my labors, then its none of my governments concern other than taxing me at the minimum necessary to supply basic services. The D's have a problem with this.
Here is the problem. They are all STATISTS. None of them believe in the supremacy of the individual.
George Bush CREATED the DHS and the USA Patriot Act. Most of the Rs are not your friends. (even though most of us hold our noses and vote for them)
The only one who is making ANY sense is Ron Paul, but unfortunately he doesn't stand a chance.
Last year the Republicans wanted to cut 40 billion from the budget. The democrats only wanted to cut 27 billion. They were arguing over 13 billion. It sounds like a lot, except that that year the Federal budget deficit was 1.3 Trillion. Or expressed in billions, 1300 billion. So they were arguing over a 1% difference as far as the deficit was concerned. They were pissing in the ocean.
Ok. Rant over.
Don
p.s. google german scheisse video if you want to be grossed out. No, I'm not into that, but it was referenced in a South park episode, and I had to look it up.
Last edited:
I'mnot trying to flame, but look at the effect that privatization had on British pensions: they essentially threw their social security on the free market (I can't remember if it was a Thatcher or Brown initiative) and it failed-- miserably.
The free market does some things exceptionally well: one thing it doesn't do well is REPLACE government, which is what a lot of people claim to want.
The free market does some things exceptionally well: one thing it doesn't do well is REPLACE government, which is what a lot of people claim to want.
I don't know what you are geting at, but government is neither a market or free. Of course you cant "replace" force with choice. But you can let people keep thier property and that is always better than theft and force.
The Brits regulated the potential investments of their citizens, micromanaged the shit out of the money managers in charge of the accounts, and based the whole thing on a market that is anything but private; they've got things regulated so tightly over there you can't sneak a fart through.
So the comparison is faulty; they didn't really privatize it, any more than we've had free market health insurance since the advent of BCBS... Which, unsurprisingly, is both the time when health insurance started going to hell AND the time in which .gov became involved.
Retired-LEO
NES Member
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
mikeyp
NES Member
There is another choice, but too many people are nervous about 3rd party candidates http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
I am a Right wing conservative and proud of it. Now the down side - I live in MA. - In Ma. Dems and Repubs are almost equal. There are a good number of "Repubs" that do not follow the Repub platform etc. So I got sick of going to the primary with a Repub running in Dem clothing. So I became an independant.
Now this is in MA - I have to keep my options open to make sure I make an informed decision. As far as National elections ie President, US Senate etc, I ALWAYS take the Repub ballot. G.W., Brown etc.
The last time I was registered as a Republican was in North Carolina. Also the last time I lived in a State that went Republican!!!
Now this is in MA - I have to keep my options open to make sure I make an informed decision. As far as National elections ie President, US Senate etc, I ALWAYS take the Repub ballot. G.W., Brown etc.
The last time I was registered as a Republican was in North Carolina. Also the last time I lived in a State that went Republican!!!
Bill Nance
Banned
Lumping healthcare in with defense is not ridiculous simply bevcause the previous several models of healthcare run as a totally private for-rpofit enterprise no longer work. The system is totally broken, simply because of the availability of treatments, medications and procedures that would have busted the budgets of everyone 50 years ago had they been available.
I was working in healthcare finance in 1986. At that time an MRI was costing $1500+. That's in 1985. Ask yourself how much money per year you were making in 1986. And what percentage of that $1500 was. For me, it was about 1/12th of my annual income. fpr ONE procedure.
It's just gotten worse. Medications add hugely to this. Lipitor, blood-thinners, psych meds, the list goers on and all of these, previous to them going generic run hundreds of dollars per month. We might take that down a notch with somewhat less FDA standards, but then again that opens up up to the horrors of the thalidomiide babies.
Bottom line is that whats available now, compared to 1950, results in 20 years more life expectancy, and NO ONE, is going to willingly forgo that life extension given any choice at all. This is what's driven up healthcare costs across the board in EVERY industrialized country in the world.
But we provide, with the exception of a few cancers, far WORSE healthcare, at double the national cost, of any modern western nation in the world. We do so because our system of delivery frankly sucks across the board.
Ending mandatory treatment of potentially life-threatening injuries/illness at emergency rooms? OK, You feel THAT confident that Blue Cross won't make a woops on your file and you can't get care when you're in a fatal car accident barring emergency medicine? No. Me neither. I have pretty good credit, but I couldn't get approval for $50,000 credit combines with all my credit cards on short notice to save my life, which is exactly what we're talking about.
Canada, unless you have a very few specialties, (which we produce ad nauseum because we underpay the Hell out of primary care docs and OVERPAY specialists) provides vastly better results overall. That's the facts. Infant mortality, life-expectancy and death rate are ALL better than the U.S. except when measured in a few metrics, NONE of which are primary causes of death I might add. Cancer is scary, but the mortality rate overall among western nations pales in comparison to other causes. We do cancer better than anyone. But your chances of getting MERSA are higher in U.S. Hospitals than in Canada's.
Some people think that the only solution other than status quo is the UK system, which NO ONE has adopted since, because it sucks so bad. There are a dozen alternatives, from Switzerland to Canada to Australia. They all work. they cost the population HALF of what we pay.
Frankly if you could cut my costs in medical bills by 50% I'd kiss your ass and thankyou for the opportunity. (I pay about 10k per year on AVERAGE between premiums and out of pocket for two people).
The notion that general welfare doesn't cover things that are absolutely essential to human health and longevity and that congress has to stop spending money because a corporation is making a profit is ludicrous. No kidding the continental congress couldn't have imagined MRIs, Blood Thinners, Blood Pressure Medications, Heart Stints and the like. The constitution isn't supposed to be a suicide note. it's supposed to be a document that can grow with the times. There is no fundamental principle of that document that is violated by Medicare for all. There just isn't.
Bill Nance
Banned
Nonsense.
The same cost exppansions have happened in every western nation in the world. Frankly, you don't know WTF you are talking about. But nice try injecting some Lew Rockwell BS into the issue.
Bill Nance
Banned
Look at the NRA rqatings. Because in my state, about half the Dems or more have A+ NRA ratings. USA/= Massatwoshits.
Bill Nance
Banned
I could cover most ordinary expenses out of pocket effortlessly. The problem comes with medications, which until two just went generic this year, were running me $4000 per year. Then you add on to that the PT I had last year, marginally covered by health insurance, which cost me $3000. Add into that my annual insurance premiums and you're talking $18,000 per year. -And forget Dental, that's another $6k per year for my family, not including premiums.
Please tell me how someone who makes the average wage of $36k per year can afford that?
Neither the MRI or PT I had, nor the Medications I take which prevent me from DYING were available 50 years ago. And for every a**h*** out there who thinks people without means should die, I want to see you take that position when your kid is dying. Because you won't.
We pay twice what every other industrialized country in the world does and provide less benefits on every major measurable level. The notion that a 60-year-old system designed as an afterthought is capable of dealing with current situations is ludicrous. The only people benefiting from a fee-for-service private insurance system are Blue Cross Et Al.
And We're all subsidizing their profits at MASSIVE cost to everyone for less benefit than almost any imaginable alternative.
Romneycare sucks ASS. It's marginally better than nothing in an absolute sense, but WORSE than nothing because ti continues to kick the can down the road. Medicare for all was the right call in 1950. It hasn't changed. Cry me a river if BC/BS isn't able to make it's obscene profits on the tax dollars of US citizens while millions of hard working pewople go without medical care until it's too late and costs too much. That's plain stupid.
Bill Nance
Banned
No question in my mind that Obama is moderately anti-gun. There never has been.
But he's also not a zealot on the issue. For that matter, a lot of other people who WERE zealots on the issue have changed their tunes on the subject because nationally, this is a DEAD issue. Jesus H. Christ, NANCY PELOSI was the one that shut Holder down cold when he was talking about a new AWB. THAT'S how dead an issue this is nationally.
I fault Obama big time over Kagan and SotoMayor. But I don't think that their Anti-2A positions was anything like a big deal for him. More of an afterthought.
You still have, in isolated constituencies, anti-gun zealots, like McCarthy from NY or my own state Senator Kline who are always on about gun control.
The last gun-control measure we had in my state (OVERWHELMINGLY DEM.) was from Kline, and he was told via the PRESS "I don't want to see anymore of this nonsense" by the DEM President of the Senate. and Speaker of the House.
Washington State, with a total population of something like 6,500,000 at last count, had 360,000 Concealed Pistol Permits. That's 5% of every man, woman and child in the state. Or about 20% of the voting electorate. You have to hate your political career to piss off that many voters. Kline, McCarthy and others come from a vehemently retrograde anti-gun district. Outside those it just doesn't fly. Many Dem. politicians have been trying for a decade or more to get the AWB OFF the Dem platform. Only Chicago, Mass and a few other Dem crapholes keep it on.
Kinda Like Rick Santorum and the VA governor intimating that birth control should be made illegal. (And Romney not taking a stand on the issue as typical).
Dems PRAY birth control would be the issue. Because only a few wackos think that's a real problem. Just like the GOP PRAYS Dems would run on gun control. Neither party is that stupid. But I notice that in 2012 only one is stupid enough to allow birth control legality to become an issue AT ALL. One is the party of no ideas, the other is that party of bad ideas. You pick which one is which on an annual basis, because it seems to me they both switch off every six months or so.
RP for the win. Even where I disagree with him, his principles are solid and consistent. Respect goes a LOOOONG way to getting my vote and RP has it in spades. Obama and Romney? Pulease.
Similar threads
