The second amendment...

[snagged in outlet 3]

15 minutes ago, Flysmallie said:

Being an American citizen gives you skin in the game. To take the rights of others so you get your way is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. 
 

It's not "my way" it's the way people who pay for everything want it.  

[snagged in outlet 3]

19 minutes ago, Smalliebigs said:

I come back after a bit and see you guys are still fishing and making posts lol

same old same old

I’ll be out in my new boat

Pictures?

[trythisonemv]

22 hours ago, Dutch said:

Do you even know the provisions of the proposed legislation?  I think you are oversimplifying this.  I have always had guns, long guns, short guns, shot guns.  This is one of the very few items upon which Blunt and I can agree.

I appreciate you trying to educate me on something that is public knowledge and of course was read by me before posting something of such a controversial nature. This is why I was delicate in my delivery. What you need to understand is that small encroachments ,much like creeping obesity, over time can erode your ability to move withing the intended framework of our constitution. Any gun law is an infringement on our rights. Now I understand folks with a more agreeable nature think that guns are dangerous and that these proposed laws would help but most crime is not committed by legal gun owners. Check out Colion Noir and take a look at guns stats and the nature of the regulations sought to be imposed. Sorry that this topic has struck a nerve. I again am just a big constitution fanatic. I don't think its right to peep into people's business or take their weapons or arrest them and let them sit for long period of time. I believe in equal protection and equal rights under the law. Further more place that have highest gun crime rates have strictest gun laws. Chicago L.A. San Francisco new York 

[tjm]

1 hour ago, Hawg said:

It would follow that any governmental worker should be denied the franchise as well.

There is a clear conflict of interest and deep unfairness in allowing a net beneficiary or employee of the gov to vote for increased taxes.

It is in their interest to always vote to increase the funding of their benefactor to the detriment of the working public..
 

 

 

 

Then anyone that works for a company that contracts with, provides services for or accepts funds from the government should also be banned from voting.

[Hawg]

13 minutes ago, tjm said:

Then anyone that works for a company that contracts with, provides services for or accepts funds from the government should also be banned from voting.

Correct.

This aids in preserving  a free society and private enterprise.

It’s very possible that continuing to allow beneficiaries to vote (in their interest)to increase the size and scope of the government, you will create a system that most of the jobs are provided by the government. This is one of the main reasons our insane bureaucracy continues to grow.   

 

This is the opposite of a free society.

 

The idea that a net tax contributor and a net tax beneficiary should have the same weight when voting on tax distribution is ludicrous and is the cause of much division.

Funny how it’s never brought up…..

[FishnDave]

Political, but maybe sort of unrelated...What would your (everyone) thoughts be about regulating lobbyists?  Individuals, companies, organizations, etc, can and SHOULD be allowed to use monies on lobbying to educate and try to persuade members of congress to see things their way.  Its up to congressional members to determine what is bull and what isn't.  That's how good things can get done.  But I don't think they should be allowed to, in any way, pay/buy members of congress or donate to their reelection campaigns.  That's how bad things happen.  Think members of congress would ever vote to not be given money from lobbyists?

[Hawg]

46 minutes ago, FishnDave said:

Political, but maybe sort of unrelated...What would your (everyone) thoughts be about regulating lobbyists?  Individuals, companies, organizations, etc, can and SHOULD be allowed to use monies on lobbying to educate and try to persuade members of congress to see things their way.  Its up to congressional members to determine what is bull and what isn't.  That's how good things can get done.  But I don't think they should be allowed to, in any way, pay/buy members of congress or donate to their reelection campaigns.  That's how bad things happen.  Think members of congress would ever vote to not be given money from lobbyists?

This has been hashed out numerous times and it’s been ruled to allow the money into politics.

Since this is where it stands I believe that transparency is the only fix.
 

Politicians should be required to display their sponsors on their clothing much like NASCAR haha 👍.

[Nick Adams]

3 hours ago, Hawg said:

There is a clear conflict of interest and deep unfairness in allowing a net beneficiary or employee of the gov to vote for increased taxes.

Tell us, when was the last time you voted on an income tax issue? Do you even understand how government works? The only tax issues we vote on are local property and sales tax issues. Federal taxes and state taxes that actually fund "government", which are what you're implying, are voted on by the people we elect. Federal and state workers are barely a drop in the bucket of the electorate. This is beyond nonsense and directly in conflict with the constitution which you are using to make your argument that there shouldn't be gun regulations--when the second amendment ACTUALLY STATES that guns should be WELL REGULATED. 

I'm mean, seriously. You want to know what's wrong with America? Ignoramuses. If you can't think critically enough to come to that conclusion on your own, when holy smokes we're screwed.

[Hawg]

//

[Hawg]

14 minutes ago, Nick Adams said:

Tell us, when was the last time you voted on an income tax issue? Do you even understand how government works? The only tax issues we vote on are local property and sales tax issues. Federal taxes and state taxes that actually fund "government", which are what you're implying, are voted on by the people we elect. Federal and state workers are barely a drop in the bucket of the electorate. This is beyond nonsense and directly in conflict with the constitution which you are using to make your argument that there shouldn't be gun regulations--when the second amendment ACTUALLY STATES that guns should be WELL REGULATED. 

I'm mean, seriously. You want to know what's wrong with America? Ignoramuses. If you can't think critically enough to come to that conclusion on your own, when holy smokes we're screwed.

The federal government is the nation's single largest employer, although it employs only about 12% of all government employees, compared to 24% at the state level and 63% at the local level.

 

Logically I’m going to vote for the candidate who is going to vote for the policy that helps my employer/aid provider