Gun Buyer = Votes?

[vvvvvvv]

Are we free in the near future to not enroll in a health care system or is freedom not enrolling and paying a fine?

The "conservative" Heritage Foundation didn't see that as a problem in the mid 90's.

How is telling people they can't use the medication and recommended by their physician that works for them more freedom? How is telling people who they can and can't associate with for a life-long relationship more freedom? How is not allowing liquor sales on Sunday more freedom? How is forcing government forcing their way into the middle of the doctor/patient relationship more freedom?

The nanny state plays both ways. According to Conservatives, you can't freely engage in sexual acts that the government does not approve of. You can't enter into relationships that the government does not first approve. You can't take the advice of your doctor unless that advice has been first approved by the government.

It seems that some would rather choose between nanny state flavors rather than choosing between the nanny state and freedom. And the typical distinctions between those flavors are made on the basis of a single issue while remaining completely ignorant of the big picture.

 

[Hobbes]

^ You also can't buy a new car on Sunday, cause it's agin the law.

The blue law to be exact.
Yeah, we still have our share of blue laws.

 

[xnavychief]

This election was bought and paid for. Doesn't matter how many votes you had.

Not sure what you mean considering that those who spent the most got the least return on their investment. Check out Outside spending, Candidate donors and Individual Super PAC donors in the link below. The highest bidders dwarfed the other side in comparison and still lost the election.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

 

[JB Books]

well,now i'm a ****head. don't take it personally JB. there was nothing in my statement that is not true.

Actually, I was not referring to you at all. This post confuses me. You're fine as far as I am concerned.

 

[ByrdC130]

The "conservative" Heritage Foundation didn't see that as a problem in the mid 90's.
It seems that some would rather choose between nanny state flavors rather than choosing between the nanny state and freedom. And the typical distinctions between those flavors are made on the basis of a single issue while remaining completely ignorant of the big picture.

I firmly believe that the two parties are holding hands on quit a few issues while they pick issues that will dramatically divide personal opinions, thus ensuring both of their existances and stifle a third or fourth party from entering the arena in DC. I think it's getting closer and closer to where the politicians can no longer deny that they, the government politicos have turned on We The People.

 

[dlbleak]

thanks JB, my mistake

 

[mrbaker09]

It seems that some would rather choose between nanny state flavors rather than choosing between the nanny state and freedom. And the typical distinctions between those flavors are made on the basis of a single issue while remaining completely ignorant of the big picture.

There is a book titled The Pedagogy of the Oppressed I do not remember the author. I am pretty sure that he is from Brazil. This statement reminded me of an idea he puts forward in the book. The idea is that people are afraid of freedom. It scares them. If they are making their decisions, then they are responsible for the failures and they also have to put forward the effort to decide how they are going to live. I think people choose different flavors of oppression because it makes them feel safer and it's easier.

 

[okiebryan]

There are two problems I have with the (R) party. Scream all you want about freedom when it comes to gun rights, but then restrict others' freedoms when it comes to stuff your bible says is bad. That's not freedom, that's more like a theocracy. Freedom is freedom. Wanting freedom only for the activities that you participate in is BS. The litmus test should only be whether it causes harm to others.

I also have a fundamental problem with how the (R) party does so much to favor mega big business. Small business keeps on struggling, but big business just gets bigger and bigger. Then when they screw up the economy and get themselves into financial trouble, we bail them out.

 

[Lurker66]

I bet gun companies never get too big to fail. And small gun manufactorers could never support the supply/demand that free markets and Capitolism seems to demand.

Imagine a few Billionaires buying up the Big gun Companies, then moving them overseas. Imagine a Law then getting passed that bans firearms or parts from being imported.

Imagine a few Billionaires who buy out gun makers, then shut them down. Or corporate raiders buying them up and selling the assets off to other countries.

Now imagine no gun companies, no supply. Only the Super rich could afford to buy guns because the demand would be so high. Eventually guns would dry up along with the 2A.

So we might wanna rethink our free market as it pertains to guns.