Again, if you want a nanny state go somewhere else. Oklahoma is not like those places on purpose. If you'd feel safer, smarter, healthier and/or wealthier in a state with more nannyism, then don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
This is such a retarded statement, I'm wondering if it's satire? I mean, you DO understand you're on a gun board for staters lol?
Again what is your definition of nannyism/nanny state? And if we want to be at the bottom on purpose then I guess we are winning.Again, if you want a nanny state go somewhere else. Oklahoma is not like those places on purpose. If you'd feel safer, smarter, healthier and/or wealthier in a state with more nannyism, then don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
Do you understand that more than just one type of person enjoys guns? If world views and opinions were broader then maybe others would also understand that just because someone disagrees that the way our state does things is for the best doesn't mean that person(s) dislikes dumping mags, hunting, or having the ability to protect ones family. One might even make a new friend if every conversation didn't devolve into "if you don't like it then leave."
Funny you worded it that way. "Enjoys"
But yes, I understand what you're trying to say. However, said demographic, push comes to shove, would like to make sure I don't "enjoy" or own, certain types of guns because they won't place blame where it belongs. Are you being obtuse or do you really not understand this and I need to explain further?
You forget that liberals tend to tell other people how they should live their lives and would vote to force people to comply, in lieu of The CONUS. They can dislike it all they please but it doesn't stop there.
Either way, at the end of the day Seattle is a liberal shythole, they proved that during the summer of "love."
What would be a better word than enjoys? Needs? Wants? Can't live without? And when it comes to owning any gun you want, I'm sure most people would be ok with that if it was in a database but that's not a conversation that most want to have. I personally don't see the need for anyone to have a fully automatic (aside from maybe hogging cuz those vids are fantastic) or a rocket launcher but I guess that's the "liberal" in me. Tbh no one needs an AR to defend their home because unless you live a specific type of lifestyle and are not properly trained you shouldn't need more than 10 rounds to stop an intruder. That said, I thoroughly enjoy Sig but it's definitely not the first thing I reach for when I hear a bump in night. And if we don't want to place blame on guns then where does it need to be placed? Mental health? Are you in support of tax money going to help with that or is that also a no? I would actually like you to explain it because I truly do wish to hear your perspective if you truly are wanting to give it.
Show me a liberal who tells someone how they should vote and live their life and I'll show you the same from the other side of the aisle. People are people after all.
Besides one summer, what else causes Seattle to be a liberal shyt hole? And why is it just that one city bring harped on? I'm far from saying Seattle is great but we also can't say we are either, statically that is.
In the end I feel like there's certain things that can be done to promote the general welfare that we refuse to do....even though it's in the conus.
I think we read the 2A differently. So far what you’ve stated sounds pro 2A to most and I get it because how it’s mentioned so often for self protection or hunting. When in reality I believe it had a another meaning to protect against a tyrannical government (yes our very own right here at home) so I believe we should be able to own anything to compete against our own government IF NEED BE. I don’t want to argue with you back and forth so I’ve just stayed silent reading the points of view you and those debating with you are stating. I think what I just stated may be the difference in your opinions. If you give up an inch of your rights they’ll take a mile. This is just my opinion of what I see.
I agree with what you are saying but I also thoroughly believe in the second part of 2A about a well regulated militia and based on what I've seen there isn't much of that going on. However, I am clearly aware that there are many people/groups that fit that definition that I am unaware of.
And we've more than given up an inch of our rights and I have yet to see the mile being attempted. Just my thoughts and I do appreciate yours!
nanny state:
noun
- a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.
- A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.
For reference, see pretty much any Democrat controlled major urban area and states like New York, California, Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.
You see our glass as half empty because we're "at the bottom" in some metrics, which are defined by liberals. I see our glass as 3/4 full, because we score very high on the freedom index. We have a vibrant energy industry and our technology training and skilled trades are pretty good. Yes we need better education but that's a political battle more than anything. Health is more of a lifestyle choice than lack of medical services.
Most of us value freedom and independence more than government intervention "for our own good". You may not feel that way, but that makes you the odd duck in Oklahoma. If you want more government control, then maybe Oklahoma isn't a good fit for you. That's all I'm saying.
I am literally at the behest of the government no matter what I do or what city I live in so technically the country is a nanny state but I understand the point you are making. And I'm sorry but statistics aren't metrics defined by liberals, there's actual science and data to back them up unlike a "freedom index" but I get what you mean by the latter. I also don't define our government being required to do whatever it takes to protect it's citizens as being a nanny state. Do some things suck and I don't agree with them? Yes, absolutely but again that's on both sides. Education also isn't a political battle at least it shouldn't be. Hell I believe that in state education should be free but it's obvious why I believe that /s.
I too value my freedom but I also want my government (federal and state) to provide for me what's due and promised ie social security or the many other social safety nets I pay taxes for. And I promise you I'm not the odd duck. Minority? Oh you bet but definitely not alone.
I'm sorry but social statistics are as much voodoo as they are "actual science". It's impossible to control all the variables and the people paying for the data always have an agenda. Therefore, every social statistics study makes assumptions. When presented, most of them outright imply a cause and effect where none is proven. Even the ones that don't imply, are carefully presented in a way that's designed to draw the reader into making inferences where any conclusion is unwarranted.
Simply put, a government that governs least, governs best. It shouldn't be authorized to save us from ourselves, because that's a recipe for a government that inevitably governs in its own self-interest. If it can give you what you need, it can take whatever it wants.
You've already abandoned your self-determination to the nanny state. Feel free to keep that to yourself, or go where you're in the majority. We don't need it here.
Similar threads
