mandating a purchase, just like Obamacare. why all the outrage now????

SmarterthanYou said:
your hacktastic opinion aside, do you wonder why this came from a vermont representative and not someone else?
Click to expand...

As I said it's probably just for conversation sake. I doubt it was meant to be taken seriously, however, we must never underestimate the mental devastation some have suffered due to the Repub loss. I'm not familiar with Rep. Fred Maslack so I can't say for sure. He may be a nutter. (I think Bijou coined that term, "nutter". I get the image of a crazy person but not one that's dangerously crazy. Just looney.)

Anyway, maybe he's worried illegal aliens will take over his sugar bush. Or he's a closeted separatist.

What do you think?
 
Thing1 said:
You mean that you didn't use the insurance system; not the healthcare system.
Click to expand...
you're trying to gerry pick terms now. you implied that everyone used the healthcare system causing burden on the overall financial state of the system. Now that I stated I paid all of my expenses out of pocket, you move the goal posts. you failed.
 
apple0154 said:
As I said it's probably just for conversation sake. I doubt it was meant to be taken seriously, however, we must never underestimate the mental devastation some have suffered due to the Repub loss. I'm not familiar with Rep. Fred Maslack so I can't say for sure. He may be a nutter. (I think Bijou coined that term, "nutter". I get the image of a crazy person but not one that's dangerously crazy. Just looney.)
Click to expand...
'nutter', or anyone who prefers to use the term, seems more interested in demonizing the other side for politics sake than anything else. You lessen your credibility in any debate by using it.

apple0154 said:
Anyway, maybe he's worried illegal aliens will take over his sugar bush. Or he's a closeted separatist.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Vermont was the first state to actually recognize that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and struck down any gun law that even remotely infringed on the right to bear arms. The representative is actually doing his constitutional duty by ensuring that all of his constituents has a firearm to contribute to the security of a free state, or at least contribute money to provide arms for those who can't afford one.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're trying to gerry pick terms now. you implied that everyone used the healthcare system causing burden on the overall financial state of the system. Now that I stated I paid all of my expenses out of pocket, you move the goal posts. you failed.
Click to expand...

It's not cherrypicking terms. There is a vast difference between the healthcare system, and the insurance industry. They are not interchangeable terms.

Everyone uses the healthcare system at some point in their lives. I haven't moved any goal posts.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
'nutter', or anyone who prefers to use the term, seems more interested in demonizing the other side for politics sake than anything else. You lessen your credibility in any debate by using it.
Click to expand...

If he is one of those who connect ownership of a firearm to protecting the State against the Federal Government then the only appropriate word is "nutter" and a dangerous one at that.

The first state to actually recognize that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and struck down any gun law that even remotely infringed on the right to bear arms. The representative is actually doing his constitutional duty by ensuring that all of his constituents has a firearm to contribute to the security of a free state, or at least contribute money to provide arms for those who can't afford one.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Click to expand...

It's fine to talk about the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution and States/citizens having the right to protect themselves against the Federal Government.....but it just isn't logical anymore. It's like that old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight. While both the citizens and the government may have guns does the average citizen have night goggles and heat sensing equipment? Body armor? Satellite tracking? The list goes on and on.

The civil war was pretty much fought on equal terms as far as weapons and technology are concerned as was the war of independence. That's no longer the case today. Telling the population to arm themselves against the Federal Government puts strange ideas into people's heads. Own a gun? Fine. Saying the reason is to protect themselves against the government? Not so fine.
 
apple0154 said:
If he is one of those who connect ownership of a firearm to protecting the State against the Federal Government then the only appropriate word is "nutter" and a dangerous one at that.
Click to expand...
maybe you should explain fully, instead of just desiring to have your statement accepted.

apple0154 said:
It's fine to talk about the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution and States/citizens having the right to protect themselves against the Federal Government.....but it just isn't logical anymore. It's like that old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight. While both the citizens and the government may have guns does the average citizen have night goggles and heat sensing equipment? Body armor? Satellite tracking? The list goes on and on.

The civil war was pretty much fought on equal terms as far as weapons and technology are concerned as was the war of independence. That's no longer the case today. Telling the population to arm themselves against the Federal Government puts strange ideas into people's heads. Own a gun? Fine. Saying the reason is to protect themselves against the government? Not so fine.
Click to expand...
isn't that sort of telling? that gun control is really about the feds being able to dominate and control the population when it's to be the other way around? I know you've said you trust the government more than the people, which makes you a treasonous individual, but that position on gun control alone should make all gun laws unconstitutional then, should it not?
 
Althea said:
The reason the idiotic OP is flawed, is because only people who use a gun, should buy one.

There is nobody alive that doesn't use our healthcare system. Given Reagan's demand that hospitals treat patients for free, we've created a scenario where too many rely on the ER as a primary care facility.

If people were able to acquire a free gun, and use it at will, then a call for mandatory purchase would be valid.
Click to expand...

There isn't anybody alive that doesn't use the security we pay for, freeloaders need to participate in the "pool" by taking some personal responsibility for security or they need to pay their "fair share". You don't have to buy a gun, you just have to pay a "tax" for not buying one.
 
Thing1 said:
Is a gun something everyone needs at some point in their life?
Click to expand...

Yes, you constantly rely on them to keep the bad guys away from you. You just refuse to take a personal stake in that security. That risk you force others to take for you is costly to the rest of us.

Can the cost of a gun if you don't have a subsidy send you into bankruptcy, and force you to sell your home?
Click to expand...
Can a missing gun cost you your life? Yes.

When seconds count the police are minutes away.
 
Damocles said:
There isn't anybody alive that doesn't use the security we pay for, freeloaders need to participate in the "pool" by taking some personal responsibility for security or they need to pay their "fair share". You don't have to buy a gun, you just have to pay a "tax" for not buying one.
Click to expand...

That's really a horrific strawman. Everyone pays taxes for the military, police & a variety of security organizations.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, you constantly rely on them to keep the bad guys away from you. You just refuse to take a personal stake in that security. That risk you force others to take for you is costly to the rest of us.


Can a missing gun cost you your life? Yes.

When seconds count the police are minutes away.
Click to expand...

Way to miss both points, by a mile. No, not everyone needs a gun, and we don't "constantly" rely upon personal ownership of guns. And I was talking about the actual cost of a gun, as compared to the cost of healthcare.

Really, the comparison of the OP gets weaker w/ every post.
 
Thing1 said:
That's really a horrific strawman. Everyone pays taxes for the military, police & a variety of security organizations.
Click to expand...

Everybody pays taxes for the payments we send to hospitals for those who don't have insurance...

The reality is, they are actually quite equivalent as an intellectual exercise. You either make my security (healthcare) bill cheaper by taking your part in the "pool" or you pay your "fair share".
 
Thing1 said:
Way to miss both points, by a mile. No, not everyone needs a gun, and we don't "constantly" rely upon personal ownership of guns. And I was talking about the actual cost of a gun, as compared to the cost of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Wow, way to be crippling foolish. You do rely on the cops to constantly keep you safe, dismissing reality because you don't want to think isn't a valid argument.

That they do a good enough job for you to conveniently "forget" that they use their guns to keep you safe doesn't change that you rely on those you seek to take your responsibility from you, and place more cost and risk on those of us who take on that responsibility and who participate in the "pool".

Really, the comparison of the OP gets weaker w/ every post.
Click to expand...
Really, the attempt to crawfish your way out of this is obvious.
 
Damocles said:
Everybody pays taxes for the payments we send to hospitals for those who don't have insurance...

The reality is, they are actually quite equivalent as an intellectual exercise. You either make my security (healthcare) bill cheaper by taking your part in the "pool" or you pay your "fair share".
Click to expand...

And how much are healthcare costs compared to the cost of a gun?

This is sad, Damo. A pathetic attempt at equivalency, even for you.
 
Thing1 said:
That's really a horrific strawman. Everyone pays taxes for the military, police & a variety of security organizations.
Click to expand...
and imagine how much less in taxes we would have to pay if you didn't need to call the police because you were robbed, since the wanna be criminal knew you'd shoot him if he broke in to your home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top