God loves you!
dewey60, the day violent crimes are a non-issue is the day weapons for self-defense are no longer needed. Remaining to be a sheep is a terrible way to live.
Regarding the incident yesterday, Tax_Payer @ 1:41 AM sums it up perfectly.
To no one's surprise, the article title is misleading. The story shows it is hard to escape from the fact that the primary goal of the NRA is protection of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how the writer attempts to frame it. The example of the provision in the health care bill to prevent higher premiums for households with guns is not an example of influencing health care legislation, but ensuring health care legislation does not hinder an individual's ability to own a firearm.
It is no mystery that the NYT has expressed disdain for the NRA. I also find it interesting that the TFP chooses to release this article in its own paper right after the unfortunate shooting death of the 3 year old yesterday.
dewey60, maybe I need to explain this a little better. If I am offered a job a company XYZ, they may or may not offer benefits as a part of employment. These benefits are a form of compensation in addition to the hourly rate of pay or salary that I would receive. Thus the entire compensation offered for working for company XYZ is the pay plus benefits. I can weigh the good and bad of working for company XYZ before accepting or declining the position.
Choosing to work for a company that offers health care benefits as a part of employment is a far cry from socialism - rather it is the complete opposite. In the end, there is choice.
I understand not all employers offer such benefits, I understand people that are self-employed would have to pay out of pocket for health care coverage, and I understand some people take jobs simply for the health care benefits. Many bad scenarios lead to high premiums or large bills that end up in the hands of the individual. That's why I was, and still am, for health care reform. Unfortunately, the way it was handled and signed into law is, in my opinion, a huge, expensive mistake. The government in control of such a large industry will not solve it's problems. I think it will only make things worse.
The health care debate has been discussed on these threads before, and because it is off-topic to the cartoon, I will try not to get into much more detail or debate.
~It's not free, (it's) part of the compensation for the work they are (performing) for which they are hired.
Sorry, didn't proof read.
dewey60, employers offer health care coverage as a part of employment. Many companies do offer the employee to opt out, in which they can receive a stipend as compensation. It's not free, it part of the compensation for the work they are for which they are hired.
alprova, you are kind of proving my point. I believe there is too much emphasis on the type of firearms or weapons that are either are or are not available and not enough emphasis on how these weapons are used. Too much focus is on the gray area of the types of firearms while bad guys can essentially acquire almost any type of small arms. I wasn't arguing for argument sake, but trying to show the distinction of how there appears to be focus more on the weapon itself and not the person handling it, most notably in the media. I apologize for attempting to imply rather than explain in my previous post.
Truth be told, I'd love to own an M16 or something similar for nothing more than sporting use and for spite of gun control groups.
"But there are limits to everything. There is no justifiable reason for a private citizen to have possession of any military grade firearm that is in working condition.
"Why?" Because most people who own such weaponry rarely keep the fact that they own them a secret and because far too many of them wind up in the hands of criminals."
If you have some info or facts on this, please share. And define "military grade" firearm in your words, please. One could argue that the M9 Service Pistol (civilian: Beretta 92FS) is "military grade". Also, the 7.62 and 5.56 rifle rounds are standard NATO "military grade" ammunition calibers that are commonly available in the US.
With concerns of such weapons getting into the wrong hands, bad guys can always find a way to acquire such weapons on their own. As a comparison, cocaine and other such drugs are clearly illegal, yet people still have the ability to find and purchase them.
Shock, the problem with the gray area is it always ever-expanding to meet the agenda of the political powers at work. The intention of the of 2nd Amendment was to ensure that every citizen has the right (and in my opinion, the responsibility) to defend themselves with the same force that can be brought against them. You do bring up a good point with "military" grade weapons, but if you think about it, any person who wants to do harm using such items could attempt to create these regardless if it is legal or not, as they are obviously not concerned about the law. For example, a land mine is nothing more than a triggered explosive. Anyone who really wants to create a crude version of one of these probably could.
I do agree that some questions are still left unanswered. But I would like to see more emphasis on answering these questions within the context of the Constitution rather than a focus on case law. A close 5-4 decision on a right granted by the Constitution is cause for great concern.
To answer your question of guns in bars, I believe an individual has every right to carry in a bar. However, with this comes the great responsibility to the individual to have the proper conduct. Very few would argue that a gun should not be in the hands of the intoxicated. An easy comparison would be to automobiles.
If Clay knew any of the actual statistics regarding firearms, especially when it comes to self-defense, violent crime rates, etc, then maybe he would reconsider this ignorant cartoon. The SCOTUS ruling yesterday should not have even been necessary; the Constitution should be sufficient.