Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: AlistairCook on January 18, 2013, 03:26 pm
-
So, without exposing my prejudices I will ask those of you from the US
1) Should any person be able to own a gun
2) Do you believe in universal health care.
Ive got a lot more questions but ... lets just start with those ones.
-
Aren't you supposed to be playing Cricket?
-
Define "Universal Healthcare" for starters.
Do you mean "Free" healthcare?
State run healthcare?
Cuban style healthcare?
None of the above?
Universal is one of those feelgood buzzwords that really is overused.
If you mean "free" (which Obamacare isn't) - who pays for it??
As you can already tell, I'm not for it. - Let's leave gun control on the back burner for now. Or another thread.
Maybe there should be a "Open up a can of worms" section on here! LoL!
PS - I do enjoy lively (civilized) debate. Whoever goes to name calling first, is the automatic loser. Do not pass GO, Do not collect $200.
-
Give everyone a gun - have them shoot the sick.
Prahblem salved. 'Merica back on top!
-
1)
"In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control." I believe any person should be able to control a gun unless you have a history of violence or are severely mentally handicapped. I personally do not own a gun, but I believe that it is my right should i choose to. It is written in our constitution, that if the government should begin to fail or stop working, it is our responsibility to fix it. That is pretty much impossible these days and definitely will be impossible if our guns are taken from us.
I do believe that a lot of things need to change, for example there are only 2500 ATF agents in the country, these agents are responsible for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and other things. They are supposed to run an inventory on gun shops at least once a year but can only get to each shop once every 20 years because of the lack of manpower. A lot of guns can go missing in 20 years if you have a crooked dealer.....It is also not against the law to sell to someone who may be under the influence of drugs, including alcohol.
----Something to think about. I find it harder and harder to trust our government everyday
Take a look at this video. it is a rough preliminary conspiracy documentary, but some of the stuff in here has been confirmed by news agencies since. Apparently it was a hoax to get the public behind Obamas gun control plan.
----http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DWx9GxXYKx_8%26sns%3Dfb
*takes off foil hat
2)
I believe that healthcare is a universal right, and it should be supplied by the government. I do not think that it is right for the US right now, hopefully someday.
-
A more timely argument for the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is the FLU!
The flu kills more people every year in the US than guns do. Yet our "trustworthy" government, in a scam with pig pharma pushes the vaccine. - Just helped my ex-wife to the hospital with the flu. The place looked like a scene out of the movie "Outbreak"! - As the tyrant in the White House, never one to let a crisis go to waste, uses a school shooting to pursue his master plan of disarming us.
Oh BTW - she had the flu shot. - I never get one, based on my knowledge of nutrition and disease. I felt it coming on this morning, and took 2 grams of Vitamin C (crystalline powder in juice) every hour, until intestinal distress started, then titrated down. - After a great meal of broiled Swordfish, spinach, and brown rice. I feel healthy as a race horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking back over many communist takeovers by tyrants, Hitler, Castro, Chaves, Mao. - One thread is common. - The promise of Universal Healthcare, and the disarming of it's citizenry.
Just my opinion based on what little I've learned. I know there is always more.
Peace
jagfug
-
The flu kills more people every year in the US than guns do. Yet our "trustworthy" government, in a scam with pig pharma pushes the vaccine. - Just helped my ex-wife to the hospital with the flu. The place looked like a scene out of the movie "Outbreak"! - As the tyrant in the White House, never one to let a crisis go to waste, uses a school shooting to pursue his master plan of disarming us.
Although banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines can hardly be considered "disarming us". I'm all for gun rights but these bans won't be depriving me of my weapons and I don't see them as any great loss. For those that fear tyrannical government I'm not sure how stockpiling these assault weapons and mags in your basement is going to do much if they come for you.
-
I'm for getting people the help they need but of course you can't force doctors to help people. Unfortunately we live in a monetary system and people need to get paid, so someone has to pay the doctors. I'd much rather my tax dollars being spent on that than on all these illegal invasions. I think we could do that.
If someone wants to own a gun, I'm not going to stop them and I don't think the government should either especially considering how the government spends so much money to arm itself. The government just wants to protect it's own power and so they create laws to do that. Why should the police be allowed to own guns but not the average citizen? Seems highly unfair to me.
-
Im back from cricket training and here to put my 2cents worth:
I guess we all see this through our own cultural prism, or should I say prison ... I have only ever lived in a countries where if I need to go to hospital, see a doctor or have ongoing medical treatment I know I will not be bankrupted for the 'privelige'. I dont really comprehend a world where this might not be true. In fact it scares me that anyone might think (sorry lips) that eating some spinach and brown rice is all the vaccination you need and will save you from a brown man in the whitehouse.
As far as guns, I grew up around them because of the place where I lived but they are now much more strictly controlled. Guns as a tool of trade I can understand. Guns in a shooting club I can understand. Guns because aforementioned brown man is going to reign down armageddon ... me no un-der-stand-ee. Lets face it if armageddon did happen and we needed to overthrow the government I am pretty sure we could storm a bastille somewhere and grab some.
Some nuanced answers in here which gives me hope for the broader SR community.
-
Guns - In the US, there are roughly the same number of drunk-driving related deaths each year as there are gun-related homicides. So an equivalent argument might be that we should a) outlaw high-proof alcohol, and b) require that beer not be sold in quantities larger than six packs. Sound foolish? Not to prohibitionists, and we know how well that worked out.
The only way you'll get my Bud is from my cold dead hand.
-
Guns - In the US, there are roughly the same number of drunk-driving related deaths each year as there are gun-related homicides. So an equivalent argument might be that we should a) outlaw high-proof alcohol, and b) require that beer not be sold in quantities larger than six packs. Sound foolish? Not to prohibitionists, and we know how well that worked out.
The only way you'll get my Bud is from my cold dead hand.
Would most of those drunk drivers have held drivers licenses? Cause from what I hear if I turn up to a gun show I can get a gun with no background check and no licence required. Seems a bit of weird thing.
-
Health Care could be partially free, but not the way society is setup now. If our government wasn't stealing from us and if private banks weren't allowed to rack up as much debt as they want and enslaving us in the process we could.
Like how the Army will buy contracts for war jeeps, they are pretty much the same thing as a domestic 20K Jeep but they sell them to Uncle Sam for 1/4 million a piece. No one calls this fraud or embezzlement but it is. KBR builds prison camps and MP quarters while their parent company Halliburton drills for oil. If we could stop this kind of shit there would be enough money for health care.
This is just one example of the many ways they straight up steal money, but if we could stop the looting there would be money for real social services. I think we could subsidize for people that couldn't afford health insurance. We should be better to each other.
As far as weapons. If you let the government start telling you what you can arm yourself with, you will end up with a rape whistle and a rosary. They don't give two twat tampons about your ass, they just want absolute power and sheep that will follow them unquestioned.
The government can't do anything right, they lie, cheat, steal, and kill. These are the people who want to tell you what kind of guns you can have? These fucking hypocrites, control freaks want to tell you what's right from wrong? No. Fuck that. From my cold dead hands.
The government has the power to be a good force in the world but right now they're freedom hating cum stains.
I think as technology advances, motherfuckers will be fabricating energy weapons on their 3d-printers. Or even cooler, on their replicators. Let's see them regulate that. God I'd drown a school bus full of toddlers for a light saber!
-
On guns: My four year old girl child can fire a rifle bigger than she is better than most marines.
You have no idea how proud I am.
On Socialist Health Care: NO.
If you mean health care that isn't run by a bunch of government clowns and thieves, sure.
Medication costs should be as low as possible, choice should be among thousands of medical equipment manufacturers , pharmaceutic manufacturers, and health insurance providers.
Of course, a healthy People is the enemy of the State, so what does government do? Drive the costs clean through the roof with excessive and bothersome regulations, taxation, interference, and deliberate grants of monopoly and other bumfuckery.
-
It is written in our constitution, that if the government should begin to fail or stop working, it is our responsibility to fix it
By "fix it [the Government]" you mean SHOOT THOSE ****-SUCKING HORSE-*****ING ****-DRINKING **** DOG ******ERS!
Shoot every last one!
-
The USA has the most doctors and is only the 33rd healthiest country in the world, just ahead of Bosnia, Bahrain and Mexico, and way behind Cuba, Slovenia, Chile, UK etc.
When it comes to infant mortality USA manages to drop another place to 34th, below Cuba and Croatia
The USA sold out to Big Pharma, I hope the rest of the world doesn't follow suit.
-
As the tyrant in the White House, never one to let a crisis go to waste, uses a school shooting to pursue his master plan of disarming us.
Although banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines can hardly be considered "disarming us".
No, the point, sir, is to have automatic high-capacity weapons equivalent with the military is the only real choice.
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
Namely, high capacity automatic assault rifles.
Everyone should have at least one, and even small children should understand how important it is to won and be proficient with military-grade firearms.
When the status of the world hangs upon whoever has the largest stick, this is when you give big sticks to those most likely to be abused, namely, small children and timid men.
-
Doesn't the US have a second amendment that says the people have a right to keep and bear arms? That said, why does anyone need to ask for additional permission from government if you already have the right to have guns? Besides, what would the government worry about if the people had all the guns they wanted. The government has the biggest guns anyway, so what is their problem?
-
The government has the biggest guns anyway, so what is their problem?
That IS the problem.
The smallest children and frailest elders NEED to have the biggest and baddest guns because the government uses our hard-won tax money to purchase expensive automatic military-grade high-capacity assault rifles.
Therefore, we need high-capacity fully-automatic military-grade assault rifles to defend ourselves from the government.
-
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
I don't know raynardine, ideas seem to be pretty powerful. Gandhi is coming to mind quickest. A gun is an illusory form of power. Now don't get me wrong, a gun is pretty fucking powerful when it is in someone's face. If that person refuses to move though, then you have to shoot them to flex that illusory power or you lose it. Shooting them makes them into a martyr. Eventually a mob trumps a gun. People follow great leaders and great ideas. Guns work for those lacking greatness but to a lesser degree and thus are trumped by the great.
I am just a silly philosopher so of course I think ideas win out. History seems to have been guided by ideas more so than weapons though(or maybe equally).
-
No, the point, sir, is to have automatic high-capacity weapons equivalent with the military is the only real choice.
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
Namely, high capacity automatic assault rifles.
Have to agree with Blerbadoo. I'll just point out that I don't think Mao or any of his pearls of "wisdom" are deserving of being placed on a pedestal and exalted. Quite the opposite.
So I'm curious, what do you think would be the real world outcome of everyone owning an assault weapon? Unfortunately, we know it would have to result in more people getting killed because you can't expect everyone to own them responsibly. But how do you think things would be improved?
You also mentioned needing them to defend against government. So I'm hoping you could share what threat you think ownership of your semi-auto assault weapon helps to keep at bay that is being posed to you by government?
-
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
I don't know raynardine, ideas seem to be pretty powerful. Gandhi is coming to mind quickest.
Didn't Ghandi die? Did he have any children? Did Ghandi leave any heirs? Did Ghandi leave a legacy? Did Ghandi make an impact, a meaningful impact, on the world?
A gun is an illusory form of power. Now don't get me wrong, a gun is pretty fucking powerful when it is in someone's face. If that person refuses to move though, then you have to shoot them to flex that illusory power or you lose it.
Which means they'll shoot you, and now you are dead.
Shooting them makes them into a martyr. Eventually a mob trumps a gun. People follow great leaders and great ideas. Guns work for those lacking greatness but to a lesser degree and thus are trumped by the great.
I think it would be interesting what you think makes a man or woman great. What makes a man a great man, in your opinion?
Does eating shrooms and talking about machine elves make you a great man?
Does fraternizing with the DEA and working for Dow Chemical to invent insecticides make you a great man?
Does composing rock songs and singing about how bad war is, but doing nothing but sing to stop war make you a great man?
Does wearing your hair in long braids and having sex with young flower girls and smoking weed make you a great man?
What, exactly, makes you a great man?
Those things that make you a great man, are those things anyone can teach themselves to be? Or do the things that make you a great man only exist in people who are born great men?
Are great men good men? Are great men and women people we should follow?
How would I become a great man?
I am just a silly philosopher so of course I think ideas win out. History seems to have been guided by ideas more so than weapons though(or maybe equally).
For every soldier that puts his gun down after you stuff a flower in the barrel, there's a soilder who shoots you dead.
What do you say to that, philosopher?
-
Its good to ponder how it could be, how it should be, and how it is. Bottom line, the one with the control wins. Control is power and if you have the control then you also have the money as well.
Whether its guns, healthcare, or anything else, governments have their agendas and its usually not in the best interests of the people. Free countries? Another myth.
-
Whether its guns, healthcare, or anything else, governments have their agendas and its usually not in the best interests of the people. Free countries? Another myth.
True Dat.
-
Didn't Ghandi die? Did he have any children? Did Ghandi leave any heirs? Did Ghandi leave a legacy? Did Ghandi make an impact, a meaningful impact, on the world?
Uh... Seriously? Is that rhetorical? If it is rhetorical, does it actually work the way you want it to?
Did Gandhi have an impact? I think he played a pretty integral part of the history of India in the 20th century...
Guess Mandela didn't leave a meaningful impact on the world either?
Some methods(force) allow for quick and drastic change. However, this is short lived and the next guy using force can step in pretty quick. Read Machiavelli... even back then he realized that having the people on your side brings a longer lasting change.
Of course a soldier can shoot me and I'll be dead. The idea that I died for will live on. You also need to think on a small interpersonal level. These martyrs inspire people. They give people hope. They have drastic effects on the people whose lives intertwine with theirs.
Soldiers are people like you and me. These ideas can influence them just as easily. A sadistic warlord can't do much if his soldiers jump ship.
The gun doesn't hold the power, the fear does.
-
The very term 'gun control' says it all. Thats the major agenda on governments list of things to do, control. I think one of the things is too is that when someone is in charge(on top)then there's only one direction to go after that(down), thats what they fear, losing control and going down. Thats why they try to censor and outlaw free speech, control guns or anything else having to do with true freedom. My message to government today is the middle finger. Welcome to the revolution.
-
My message to government today is the middle finger. Welcome to the revolution.
What they do not discuss on the news or on television is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The definition of "militia" in case you were wondering is:
"An army of trained civilians, which may be an official reserve army, called upon in time of need, the entire able-bodied population of a state which may also be called upon or a private force not under government control."
-
People are starting to wake up, but so many lack the resources to truly make an impact, and some are afraid. Fear is another control mechanism, and so is the money supply. But you know, if enough people got together...
-
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN SHOULD WE OWN GUNS? FUCK YES!!! WE NEED TYRANT CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL. Gun control has backfired because we are buying guns and when the government tries to take our guns we will revolt and put their asses out of business with lead. Fuck gun control and fuck you for even suggesting it!!! We already have health care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When they try to take our guns they will be chewed up, swallowed and shitted out the ass of the American people just like the fucking Red Coats were! We are not slaves only disarmed people are slaves!
-
People are starting to wake up, but so many lack the resources to truly make an impact, and some are afraid. Fear is another control mechanism, and so is the money supply. But you know, if enough people got together...
I started fearing my government so I started buying more guns and I feel so much better now. 100 million gun owners strong and the tyrants are all scared now. We will win and they will be driven out of office and be put in shackles for treason! Obama committed TREASON with the NDAA and by sitting on the UN! He is a puppet of the private nonfederal reserve banks that are owned by foreigners and designed to implode our economy. Gun control is not an option in this country at all. Its just a quick way to get We The Poeple to vote their asses out or toss their asses out physically Only people that want gun control are idiots who think the government can protect them. This is not something to take lightly. Criminals always say give us your gun like England and Australia have done. That was dumb as shit! Now you guys are slaves and have to do what you are told! YOu have no freedom now, you gave up! You screwed your children and grandchildren by allowing criminals to disarm you and implode your economies through central banks. We will get rid of these communist and private nonfederal reserve. JUST WATCH!
-
Aren't you supposed to be playing Cricket?
LMFAO
1. Absolutely not...I am a perfect example...I am the last person who should be allowed a firearm... ;)
2. Yes, everyone should have healthcare
-
Sounds like more than just a few people are 'in the know'. The next question is, now what? Knowing is the first step, but once you know, then a decision has to be made. Sit idly by? or do something. If the answer is do something, then what?
-
If the answer is do something, then what?
What can we do?
-
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
I don't know raynardine, ideas seem to be pretty powerful. Gandhi is coming to mind quickest. A gun is an illusory form of power. Now don't get me wrong, a gun is pretty fucking powerful when it is in someone's face. If that person refuses to move though, then you have to shoot them to flex that illusory power or you lose it. Shooting them makes them into a martyr. Eventually a mob trumps a gun. People follow great leaders and great ideas. Guns work for those lacking greatness but to a lesser degree and thus are trumped by the great.
I am just a silly philosopher so of course I think ideas win out. History seems to have been guided by ideas more so than weapons though(or maybe equally).
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms the BLACKEST." Mohandes Ghandi an autobiography page 446
Peace is good! We cannot have peace if only tyrants are armed. From time to time it is necessary to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-
Aren't you supposed to be playing Cricket?
LMFAO
1. Absolutely not...I am a perfect example...I am the last person who should be allowed a firearm... ;)
2. Yes, everyone should have healthcare
If you pay for my guns and ammo then I will buy your health care. My right to defend myself is a birth right that no man can take away! Health care is not a right! Health care is an individual ability to care for oneself, same with food, clothing and shelter. We are guaranteed certain right that are UNALIENABLE which means the government cannot put a lien on or take because the government does not give us our rights, but our creator or our birth gives us these Rights. The right to speak freely, bare arms. travel, own property, not to be searched, have property confiscated, etc.. They can only take the rights if you forfeit them by agreeing with them. Read your Bill of Rights and it may stir you a little to own a gun to protect yourself against the tyrants that want to manage you from the cradle to the grave. Hi KtiKat.lol
-
We are guaranteed certain right that are UNALIENABLE which means the government cannot put a lien on or take because the government does not give us our rights
Your mother is unalienable.
Rights are a fiction, especially natural rights. That said, certain countermeasures to tyrannical power are important to put into place. One of these is ensuring that the weakest of us have powerful weapons equal to the greatest tyrant.
That means automatic assault rifles, plastic explosives, modern drones, and possibly nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. I have not decided if it is truly wise to give nuclear warheads to emotionally disturbed individuals, however, the principle of arming the weak so that they are better capable of defending themselves is sound.
Tyrants cannot thrive in a situation where they can gain no significant ground over others.
-
Your mom left her panties under my bed bitch. FUCK YOU!!!
Yes I agree we should be all armed to the teeth and no my rights are not a fiction.
-
We are guaranteed certain right that are UNALIENABLE which means the government cannot put a lien on or take because the government does not give us our rights
Your mother is unalienable.
Rights are a fiction, especially natural rights. That said, certain countermeasures to tyrannical power are important to put into place. One of these is ensuring that the weakest of us have powerful weapons equal to the greatest tyrant.
That means automatic assault rifles, plastic explosives, modern drones, and possibly nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. I have not decided if it is truly wise to give nuclear warheads to emotionally disturbed individuals, however, the principle of arming the weak so that they are better capable of defending themselves is sound.
Tyrants cannot thrive in a situation where they can gain no significant ground over others.
I hope you purchase from me someday so I have your address for that mother comment you little bitch! You never now who your insulting!!!
-
We are guaranteed certain right that are UNALIENABLE which means the government cannot put a lien on or take because the government does not give us our rights
Your mother is unalienable.
Rights are a fiction, especially natural rights. That said, certain countermeasures to tyrannical power are important to put into place. One of these is ensuring that the weakest of us have powerful weapons equal to the greatest tyrant.
That means automatic assault rifles, plastic explosives, modern drones, and possibly nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. I have not decided if it is truly wise to give nuclear warheads to emotionally disturbed individuals, however, the principle of arming the weak so that they are better capable of defending themselves is sound.
Tyrants cannot thrive in a situation where they can gain no significant ground over others.
You are a communist for saying that! Thats what Mao and Stalin would say to discredits peoples rights you fuckface pussy motherfucker!
-
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
I don't know raynardine, ideas seem to be pretty powerful. Gandhi is coming to mind quickest. A gun is an illusory form of power. Now don't get me wrong, a gun is pretty fucking powerful when it is in someone's face. If that person refuses to move though, then you have to shoot them to flex that illusory power or you lose it. Shooting them makes them into a martyr. Eventually a mob trumps a gun. People follow great leaders and great ideas. Guns work for those lacking greatness but to a lesser degree and thus are trumped by the great.
I am just a silly philosopher so of course I think ideas win out. History seems to have been guided by ideas more so than weapons though(or maybe equally).
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms the BLACKEST." Mohandes Ghandi an autobiography page 446
Peace is good! We cannot have peace if only tyrants are armed. From time to time it is necessary to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
So you even agree with Mao! You little fag communist pussy I see who you are spreading your communist shit on here. Fuck you. You are an idiot and you deserve what happens to you!
-
I hope you purchase from me someday so I have your address for that mother comment you little bitch! You never now who your insulting!!!
LOL, look who's sensitive about his mother. I'll keep in mind that you like to defraud your customers
-
The point, jpinkman, is that Mao was correct when he said political power stems from the barrel of a gun.
I don't know raynardine, ideas seem to be pretty powerful. Gandhi is coming to mind quickest. A gun is an illusory form of power. Now don't get me wrong, a gun is pretty fucking powerful when it is in someone's face. If that person refuses to move though, then you have to shoot them to flex that illusory power or you lose it. Shooting them makes them into a martyr. Eventually a mob trumps a gun. People follow great leaders and great ideas. Guns work for those lacking greatness but to a lesser degree and thus are trumped by the great.
I am just a silly philosopher so of course I think ideas win out. History seems to have been guided by ideas more so than weapons though(or maybe equally).
Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.
-
I hope you purchase from me someday so I have your address for that mother comment you little bitch! You never now who your insulting!!!
LOL, look who's sensitive about his mother. I'll keep in mind that you like to defraud your customers
You wont even know you are ordering from me when you do but I sure will punk. Sleep tight there buddy.
-
fuck your mom.
-
So you even agree with Mao! You little fag communist pussy I see who you are spreading your communist shit on here. Fuck you. You are an idiot and you deserve what happens to you!
I take it you are new here and do not realize this is a character that I play.
I'm the "bad guy" of this forum, and I'm not serious.
Lighten up, will you?
I would not describe myself as a communist, so I don't think you have actually read what I have written.
-
I get into discussions about this and other topics, especially interesting after some good weed. Look at all the other people that are aware of whats really going on, and government just keeps doing what they do, not caring what people know because they already have their 'official' storyline set. What can people do? I'll say this, what did people do when they had enough of a tyranical british monarch a little over 200 years ago in whats now the US? There's a clue
-
If you pay for my guns and ammo then I will buy your health care. My right to defend myself is a birth right that no man can take away! Health care is not a right! Health care is an individual ability to care for oneself, same with food, clothing and shelter. We are guaranteed certain right that are UNALIENABLE which means the government cannot put a lien on or take because the government does not give us our rights, but our creator or our birth gives us these Rights. The right to speak freely, bare arms. travel, own property, not to be searched, have property confiscated, etc.. They can only take the rights if you forfeit them by agreeing with them. Read your Bill of Rights and it may stir you a little to own a gun to protect yourself against the tyrants that want to manage you from the cradle to the grave. Hi KtiKat.lol
Do you confine your reading to Calvin and Hobbes or have you read Thomas Hobbes as well?
-
The government has the biggest guns anyway, so what is their problem?
That IS the problem.
The smallest children and frailest elders NEED to have the biggest and baddest guns because the government uses our hard-won tax money to purchase expensive automatic military-grade high-capacity assault rifles.
Therefore, we need high-capacity fully-automatic military-grade assault rifles to defend ourselves from the government.
In my honest opinion i do not think that the government would ever be able to take away our weapons or use our military against us, the point of the military is to protect the people,even though they do carryout operations issued by the government, the men and women who actually do the hard work would never turn on their family and friends in the event that a psychopath ever made it into office.there will be bloodshed when the government attempts to ban guns altogether. it would never happen.unless of course we were so far in the future that gunpowder was not the source of power for bullets,i could see the government possibly being able to control or shutdown star wars type laser weapons. something like that.
-
On the healthcare issue, if a person is terminally ill and without hope of recovery, they have whats known as 'death panels' which access the person's condition and actually call the shots on what type of care they should get. I heard of a case where someone was terminal and instead of giving them proper treatment as recommended by a doctor the death panel opted for the much lesser treatment because the person is gonna die anyway. So they're basically refusing proper care because they don't wanna pay for it and helping that person die quicker with lesser care and suffer more along the way. Thats sounds pretty bad, but thats where its headed. What if you were real sick and they just decide "Naw, we're not paying for their care" Thats messed up.
-
On the healthcare issue, if a person is terminally ill and without hope of recovery, they have whats known as 'death panels' which access the person's condition and actually call the shots on what type of care they should get. I heard of a case where someone was terminal and instead of giving them proper treatment as recommended by a doctor the death panel opted for the much lesser treatment because the person is gonna die anyway. So they're basically refusing proper care because they don't wanna pay for it and helping that person die quicker with lesser care and suffer more along the way. Thats sounds pretty bad, but thats where its headed. What if you were real sick and they just decide "Naw, we're not paying for their care" Thats messed up.
Say what? It sounds like you've been buying into right wing mythology. Check your sources. I thought that myth was laid to rest shortly after the Alaskan bimbo made it 4 1/2 years ago. Amazing that it somehow persists.
A person chooses EOL treatment options themselves, or if they're incapacitated then the decision goes to the closest family member.
There are no "death panels".
-
I dunno dude, I heard it from the person who is related to the ill person. Plus, the people are not right wing at all either, so I dunno man.
-
On the healthcare issue, if a person is terminally ill and without hope of recovery, they have whats known as 'death panels' which access the person's condition and actually call the shots on what type of care they should get. I heard of a case where someone was terminal and instead of giving them proper treatment as recommended by a doctor the death panel opted for the much lesser treatment because the person is gonna die anyway. So they're basically refusing proper care because they don't wanna pay for it and helping that person die quicker with lesser care and suffer more along the way. Thats sounds pretty bad, but thats where its headed. What if you were real sick and they just decide "Naw, we're not paying for their care" Thats messed up.
Say what? It sounds like you've been buying into right wing mythology. Check your sources. I thought that myth was laid to rest shortly after the Alaskan bimbo made it 4 1/2 years ago. Amazing that it somehow persists.
A person chooses EOL treatment options themselves, or if they're incapacitated then the decision goes to the closest family member.
There are no "death panels".
Maybe not exactly death panels. But bureaucrats do determine what drugs/treatment will be available so they are indirectly determining who lives and dies in a more general way.
-
In my honest opinion i do not think that the government would ever be able to take away our weapons or use our military against us, the point of the military is to protect the people,even though they do carryout operations issued by the government, the men and women who actually do the hard work would never turn on their family and friends in the event that a psychopath ever made it into office.there will be bloodshed when the government attempts to ban guns altogether. it would never happen.unless of course we were so far in the future that gunpowder was not the source of power for bullets,i could see the government possibly being able to control or shutdown star wars type laser weapons. something like that.
Even if semi-automatic assault weapons were made illegal the government would never go door to door to take them away from people. They're well aware how much that would bother Americans. They would just ban the legal sale of them from gun stores or shows. That would mean a bonanza for anyone owning one right now as their asset would skyrocket.
As far as military, historically a government's military has served the dual purpose of protecting (and plundering) outside threats or targets and protecting government and leadership from internal threats and to control the masses. So for instance if it's a perceived threat like revolutionaries gunning for leadership to take over government and install anarchy via militant libertarianism, then I see no conflict for military to get involved. When the military decides it has had enough of current leadership or that current leadership has become a liability you end up with a coup d'etat (e.g. Pakistan, still run by military junta in spite of civilian leadership) or a revolution like in Egypt last year.
Fortunately in the US we have a 200 year history and tradition of military chiefs being subservient to civilian leadership. There's no reason for military to overthrow civilian government when every 4 years there are processes by which heads of state can and do change, especially if unpopular they will be defeated at the polls.
-
Maybe not exactly death panels. But bureaucrats do determine what drugs/treatment will be available so they are indirectly determining who lives and dies in a more general way.
How so? I thought it's the private sector, the pharm companies, that decide upon which drugs they will bring to market based on the cost to themselves. Private sector executives can't really be considered "bureaucrats".
Unless you're thinking of the FDA. But the purpose of the FDA is to determine whether certain drugs are safe or not, not whether a drug will be made available to you based on cost. EOL drugs approved by the FDA are covered by Medicare.
-
I dunno dude, I heard it from the person who is related to the ill person. Plus, the people are not right wing at all either, so I dunno man.
It sounds like bullshit then and the dude didn't know what he was talking about. It's not legal for anyone outside of the person themselves or family member to decide on termination. Unless there are no surviving relatives and the person is too incapacitated to make the decision themselves. At that point I see no controversy with doctors or whoever to unhook the machines.
-
Maybe not exactly death panels. But bureaucrats do determine what drugs/treatment will be available so they are indirectly determining who lives and dies in a more general way.
How so? I thought it's the private sector, the pharm companies, that decide upon which drugs they will bring to market based on the cost to themselves. Private sector executives can't really be considered "bureaucrats".
Unless you're thinking of the FDA. But the purpose of the FDA is to determine whether certain drugs are safe or not, not whether a drug will be made available to you based on cost. EOL drugs approved by the FDA are covered by Medicare.
Administrators of socialized medicine must make decisions on what drugs and treatments will be available. If you're telling me that there are no such decision makers in the US then I apologize for my uninformed outburst :)
-
Administrators of socialized medicine must make decisions on what drugs and treatments will be available. If you're telling me that there are no such decision makers in the US then I apologize for my uninformed outburst :)
Not at all. I'm interested in how the "death panel" meme lives on even though it's been so thoroughly debunked. :)
The only thing that can be considered "socialized medicine" in the US is Medicare (except VA, but that's only for military) for those 65 or older or those with disabilities. Any EOL drugs or treatments approved by the FDA are covered by Medicare. The only thing I can think of that a bureaucrat decides anything is when it comes to how much cost will be shared with the patient by affixing a price to the out-of-pocket expense that the patient must pay. But these costs are generally very low. For instance, for in-home 24-hour care it would cost the patient $644 a day out of pocket which is really nothing compared to what it would cost on the free market for an in-home nurse to attend to a person around the clock.
-
The UK spends around 8% of its GDP on health care.
The US spends around 11% of its GDP on health care.
I find that interesting...
-
Administrators of socialized medicine must make decisions on what drugs and treatments will be available. If you're telling me that there are no such decision makers in the US then I apologize for my uninformed outburst :)
Not at all. I'm interested in how the "death panel" meme lives on even though it's been so thoroughly debunked. :)
The only thing that can be considered "socialized medicine" in the US is Medicare (except VA, but that's only for military) for those 65 or older or those with disabilities. Any EOL drugs or treatments approved by the FDA are covered by Medicare. The only thing I can think of that a bureaucrat decides anything is when it comes to how much cost will be shared with the patient by affixing a price to the out-of-pocket expense that the patient must pay. But these costs are generally very low. For instance, for in-home 24-hour care it would cost the patient $644 a day out of pocket which is really nothing compared to what it would cost on the free market for an in-home nurse to attend to a person around the clock.
I guess Palin just thought/was told it was good politics to scream about death panels.
Although I cannot match your in depth knowledge of specifics about the delivery of medical care in the US, I stand by my statement that in government administered medical programs (such as medicare) government departments must make determinations on which treatments/drugs will be funded.
At the very least, the CMS has the legal authority to make determinations on what is "reasonable and necessary" in providing diagnosis, treatment or palliative care.
Procedures etc. which have not been determined to be reasonable and necessary will not be funded through medicare.
-
I wouldn't be so foolish to just parrot lines from some politician who has an agenda. Bottom line, whether guns or health care, as well as a whole array of other issues, there's just a bunch of messed up shit going on, and its the people that are getting shit on by the so called leaders. As far as the death panel thing, thats what this guy called it. So thats what that is.
-
I wouldn't be so foolish to just parrot lines from some politician who has an agenda. Bottom line, whether guns or health care, as well as a whole array of other issues, there's just a bunch of messed up shit going on, and its the people that are getting shit on by the so called leaders. As far as the death panel thing, thats what this guy called it. So thats what that is.
I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying that at the minimum this friend of yours likely has a really fervent imagination and somehow bought into the "death panel" hysteria because the whole scenario you described is like something literally invented from the type of "socialized medicine nightmare" scenario republicans were hyping 4 1/2 years ago that turned out to be total bogus.
Just the way you describe it here is hilarious:
On the healthcare issue, if a person is terminally ill and without hope of recovery, they have whats known as 'death panels' which access the person's condition and actually call the shots on what type of care they should get. I heard of a case where someone was terminal and instead of giving them proper treatment as recommended by a doctor the death panel opted for the much lesser treatment because the person is gonna die anyway. So they're basically refusing proper care because they don't wanna pay for it and helping that person die quicker with lesser care and suffer more along the way. Thats sounds pretty bad, but thats where its headed. What if you were real sick and they just decide "Naw, we're not paying for their care" Thats messed up.
There's a difference between what BarryBarron depicted, which is plausible, and what your friend described that you passed on above. What your friend described is like something out of a Dr Caligari movie that doesn't have much basis in reality. If you've got a citation to empirical case studies, or even a credible news source, that relates instances where this has happened it would lend your story some credibility (and still would if you had a more solid source than something "you heard"). But I think believing your friend's story of "death panels" and even passing the story on without first researching to see if it's even true is the whole reason why "urban myths" get started in the first place. :o
-
We must have gun control to prevent people from shooting the state agents coming to collect the debt to the socialized healthcare system!
from a moral standpoint health care is not something that should be provided by society by force. Nobody has the right to point a gun at you and tell you to give your money to some sick person. That said, it is good for society if people voluntarily give money to provide for the health of humanity. Single people have donated billions of dollars to healthcare, Bill Gates immediately comes to mind. Having universal health care for everybody is a goal that we should strive towards, but it should absolutely not be paid for by slaves.
-
We must have gun control to prevent people from shooting the state agents coming to collect the debt to the socialized healthcare system!
The taxes levied to pay for the ACA is only a .9% tax on earned income if you make over 250k a year and a 3.8% surtax on unearned income (dividends, annuities, rent income, interest, etc) of individuals making over 200k (and families over 250k) a year.
So fortunately a great majority of people won't have to deal with additional taxes to pay for "socialized medicine".
from a moral standpoint health care is not something that should be provided by society by force.
Depends on what society. In the big government socialized democracies of Europe health care is viewed by many as a universal right that government has a responsibility to guarantee all citizenry. Not just health care either. Rights to pensions and child care are seen in some of these countries as universal rights too.
In the US we tend to view health care as a commodity that involves costs and have a much narrower view of what the government should provide for its citizens.
Then of course there's the militant libertarian view where health care should be strictly privatized medicine, government shouldn't even exist much less be a guarantor of anything, and "rights" are determined by whose property you are on. :)
-
I wouldn't be so foolish to just parrot lines from some politician who has an agenda. Bottom line, whether guns or health care, as well as a whole array of other issues, there's just a bunch of messed up shit going on, and its the people that are getting shit on by the so called leaders. As far as the death panel thing, thats what this guy called it. So thats what that is.
I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying that at the minimum this friend of yours likely has a really fervent imagination and somehow bought into the "death panel" hysteria because the whole scenario you described is like something literally invented from the type of "socialized medicine nightmare" scenario republicans were hyping 4 1/2 years ago that turned out to be total bogus.
Just the way you describe it here is hilarious:
On the healthcare issue, if a person is terminally ill and without hope of recovery, they have whats known as 'death panels' which access the person's condition and actually call the shots on what type of care they should get. I heard of a case where someone was terminal and instead of giving them proper treatment as recommended by a doctor the death panel opted for the much lesser treatment because the person is gonna die anyway. So they're basically refusing proper care because they don't wanna pay for it and helping that person die quicker with lesser care and suffer more along the way. Thats sounds pretty bad, but thats where its headed. What if you were real sick and they just decide "Naw, we're not paying for their care" Thats messed up.
There's a difference between what BarryBarron depicted, which is plausible, and what your friend described that you passed on above. What your friend described is like something out of a Dr Caligari movie that doesn't have much basis in reality. If you've got a citation to empirical case studies, or even a credible news source, that relates instances where this has happened it would lend your story some credibility (and still would if you had a more solid source than something "you heard"). But I think believing your friend's story of "death panels" and even passing the story on without first researching to see if it's even true is the whole reason why "urban myths" get started in the first place. :o
I'm not from the US but I have heard of the 'death panel' allegation and I think it comes from my line of reasoning - only blown out of proportion & politicized by fake 'tea-party' candidates.
In the UK, the government directly determines which drugs and treatments are available on the NHS - which everyone pays for. You end up getting drugs made available due to political reasons, through interest groups lobbying for their particular cause. Then you've got the health boards which create the 'post-code lottery' of which drugs are made available to you, and on top of that the various quasi-governmental agencies and institutes regulating, appraising and approving drugs. It's just a big mess. Even the best of central planners cannot make the right decisions.
-
Gun control and healthcare, two issues that may never get fully resolved. There are, however, a couple good sources on the dark web for guns. I'd say get some and we can control our own guns, we don't need the governments permission, fuck em.
-
Te primary function of governments is to protect citizens from harm and ensure that they remain healthy.
The US government lets everyone shoot each other and supports a medical system that ensures that the USA is behind Libya and Turkey in the World Health Organisation league tables.
The only reason poor Americans aren't rioting in the streets is because:
a) They are, in the main, too obese and therefore don't have the energy
b) They have been subject to right wing propaganda for so long that they have actually been indoctrinated into thinking that the 'socialist' policies aimed at spreading wealth more fairly are something to be feared
c) Unlike most democratic governments that live in fear of their citizens, Americans are frightened of, and deeply mistrust, their own government
Indeed, some Americans have become so nihilistic and scared that they have literally retreated into the mountains with their guns, supplies and conspiracy theories.
There is only one conspiracy that Americans need to fear and that is the 'lie' that is American freedom and democracy.
Come on American brothers and sisters. Time to get ANGRY!!