Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[unbillievable]

58 minutes ago, muppy said:

very interesting  https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/  Australia banned assault type guns and...….

 

"As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years."

THat last line is a complete lie which invalidates the entire article.

 

Australia had one horrific shooting resulting in double digit deaths which caused the hysteria that pushed gun control. They didn't have many before that and don't have many after. The frequency didn't change much.

 

Although, you can argue the methods did get a little more creative.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

27 minutes ago, Bad Things said:

Give me a break.

 

 

It's not and as I stated there is nothing protecting our other freedoms without the second amendment

 

It's why evil people want it abolished

 

Our CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS IS AS RELEVANT TODAY AS IT WAS 200 YEARS AGO

Edited August 5, 2019 by Buffalo716

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Las Vegas shooting happened. Largest mass shooting in our country's history and we know ZERO about it or the motives of the shooter. 

 

That's not a conspiracy. That's a fact. 

 

 

 

 

The fact you don't care about finding out more about the largest mass shooting in our history -- while you do care about "counter punching" says everything we need to know about your opinions. They're not worth much at all.

 

**********************

 

 

 

...the senseless tragedies are bad enough, but politicizing them is even worse.....what's worse is how the perpetrator becomes the "victim" because society "failed them".....sure be;ieve the whole acumen and due diligence as far as mental health/stability has been woefully relaxed FOR YEARS.....people out there that should NOT be on the streets or people out there who need help.....so from that perspective, society has been lax...BUT...they can never be victims for the senseless bloodshed they perpetrate.....and focusing on "white supremacy"?...seriously?.......is the Chicago or Baltimore shooting galleries based on "white supremacy"?....how 'bout black on black which is of equal importance, as a life is a life....yet pathetics like Booker ignore black on black so they can label Trump a racist and white supremacist......does BookerBlab get YOUR vote?.....Race Baiter 101....

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why not make it #1?

 

Because...

 

#1 can be infringed on it doesn't need protecting.

 

The classic example is with the Mormons and the Nauvoo Expositor and it's destruction (of the printing press) on June 10, 1844 for being a "public nuisance."

Edited August 5, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

A country with the Population of less than Texas isn't exactly a great sample size

 

 

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

You cant have a mass killing when you live with 100 people in 500 miles 

 

So yeah the numbers do mean something.   

 

[stony]

1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

Plus, given that all Australians are decendents from murderers and rapists born with innate disposition towards violence, I'd say it's an excellent sample. ?

[Buffalo716]

8 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

The majority of the population lives in 3 or 4 large geographical areas and along the coast.   

 

The interior is sparsely populated. 

Think Canada and Alaska.  (Or Siberia even)

You cant have a mass killing when you live with 100 people in 500 miles 

 

So yeah the numbers do mean something.   

 

It's also a different culture.

 

Whether you agree with it or not the right to keep arms is part of American culture since the begining

 

And we have lost over a million Americans since our founding who all fought and died for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, stony said:

That's fine and all.  But I suppose it's the unnamed tyranny part that tends to give me pause when discussing this.  You claim you know tyranny would would be rampant if the populace could not defend themselves.  I want to know from what?     

 

History -- not to mention current events. 

 

We just lived through a period of several years where the federal government (DOJ, FBI, CIA specifically) abused its powers in an attempt to subvert a legal election simply because they disagreed with the choice the voters made. In doing so, they weaponized the oppressive powers of the state and the surveillance state to deny several people their individual liberty during a coup attempt. 

 

 

[muppy]

1 hour ago, unbillievable said:

THat last line is a complete lie which invalidates the entire article.

 

Australia had one horrific shooting resulting in double digit deaths which caused the hysteria that pushed gun control. They didn't have many before that and don't have many after. The frequency didn't change much.

 

Although, you can argue the methods did get a little more creative.

 

 

I disagree that the article I quoted is discredited and here is why... quoted from this link ….are you saying the banning of assault style guns had no effect? I would strongly disagree with you again.  https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence

Quote

Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following (though there was one mass shooting involving seven members of one family at Margaret River in Western Australia in May 2018).

Modelling suggested that if shootings had continued at a similar rate as that prior to the NFA, then approximately 16 incidents would have been expected by February 2018.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by muppy

[Q-baby!]

35 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

It's also a different culture.

 

Whether you agree with it or not the right to keep arms is part of American culture since the begining

 

And we have lost over a million Americans since our founding who all fought and died for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

How’s that working out? 

[unbillievable]

3 minutes ago, muppy said:

I disagree that the article I quoted is discredited and here is why... quoted from this link ….are you saying the banning of assault style guns had no effect? I would strongly disagree with you again.  https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/20/strict-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-deaths-heres-the-evidence

 

 

You can't do statistical analysis on rare instances.. There just isn't enough data to come up with a statement like "16 incidents prevented". It's equivalent to the false argument that a rock in your pocket prevents bear attacks.  

 

Bottom line: Restating the LIE that "no mass shootings occurred in 22 years" invalidates his argument; proven by the fact that he immediately attaches exceptions.

 

 

[unbillievable]

You are more likely to get hit by lightning, or win the Powerball than be involved in a mass shooting...

....yet this irrational fear is enough for people to give up a fundamental Right; and bully others to do the same.

 

Imagine if we had a debate to close beaches during shark week.  (which is much more likely to occur)

[muppy]

12 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

You can't do statistical analysis on rare instances.. There just isn't enough data to come up with a statement like "16 incidents prevented". It's equivalent to the false argument that a rock in your pocket prevents bear attacks.  

 

Bottom line: Restating the LIE that "no mass shootings occurred in 22 years" invalidates his argument; proven by the fact that he immediately attaches exceptions.

 

 

so let me get this straight you're quibbling over months now wether or not there were no mass shootings in 22 years? .. I posted why its right there in black and white 2 articles in which stated that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives. Would you have  argued if it had said 21 years 6 months?  Geesh.  I think you're quibbling and not seeing the more important issue and that is that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives.I think its important.... if you have data to support that action made no difference  please post it.

Edited August 5, 2019 by muppy

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, muppy said:

so let me get this straight you're quibbling over months now wether or not there were no mass shootings in 22 years? .. I posted why its right there in black and white 2 articles in which stated that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives. Would you have  argued if it had said 21 years 6 months?  Geesh.  I think you're quibbling and not seeing the more important issue and that is that banning assault style weapons indeed saved lives.I think its important.... if you have data to support that action made no difference  please post it.

 

There would still not be enough data to prove nothing changed. I can't prove that not having a rock in my pocket attracts Bears.

 

He can reduce the time to 2yrs and would still be wrong. Don't start an argument with FALSE statement and expect people to believe anything afterward.

 

[muppy]

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

You are more likely to get hit by lightning, or win the Powerball than be involved in a mass shooting...

....yet this irrational fear is enough for people to give up a fundamental Right; and bully others to do the same.

 

Imagine if we had a debate to close beaches during shark week.  (which is much more likely to occur)

speaking only for myself Im in favor of people being allowed to own guns but I believe that assault style weapons have no business being in the hands of civilians. Period. There is seemingly always a slippery slope that gets implied that we  mean ALL guns be outlawed I doubt that is a majority belief at all absolutely NOT. 

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

 

There would still not be enough data to prove nothing changed. I can't prove that not having a rock in my pocket attracts Bears.

 

He can reduce the time to 2yrs and would still be wrong. Don't start an argument with FALSE statement and expect people to believe anything afterward.

 

we aren't going to agree so Peace Out brother. I just honestly don't get how you cant see any proof that not having assault weapons in the hands of civilians even conceivably saved lives in Australia and in hand MIGHT save lives here. It couldn't freakin hurt Lol. Thanks for the discussion.

[unbillievable]

3 minutes ago, muppy said:

speaking only for myself Im in favor of people being allowed to own guns but I believe that assault style weapons have no business being in the hands of civilians. Period. There is seemingly always a slippery slope that gets implied that we  mean ALL guns be outlawed I doubt that is a majority belief at all absolutely NOT. 

 

Except that activists, and more importantly,  politicians have already  stated they want to ban ALL GUNS.

 

...and it's blatantly obvious why ordinary citizens should be armed, even beyond the need for self defense. The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to combat Tyranny, and the riots in Venezuela, Turkey, Spain, France, Hong Kong, and Oregon prove that that need still exists today.

 

It's estimated that more than 75% of firearms were NOT turned into the Australian government after the ban. So the statistics are trying to prove the effectiveness of a BAN that didn't occur.

 

 

[muppy]

15 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

Quote

Except that activists, and more importantly,  politicians have already  stated they want to ban ALL GUNS.

 

...and it's blatantly obvious why ordinary citizens should be armed, even beyond the need for self defense. The 2nd Amendment was specifically created to combat Tyranny, and the riots in Venezuela, Turkey, Spain, France, Hong Kong, and Oregon prove that that need still exists today.

 

It's estimated that more than 75% of firearms were NOT turned into the Australian government after the ban. So the statistics are trying to prove the effectiveness of a BAN that didn't occur.

 

 

mr/ms unbillievable LOL very respectfully on the bolded can you please post. links? I don't know you from Adam why should I believe what you post? I need to see this in print no offense me not taking your word for it. Im mostly a football chatter not guns Im just going to kindly call you on a couple of things. Youre talking to ME now, just muppy. Its obvious to YOU that we need arming I choose to arm myself with a very territorial and none to pleased with strangers pitbull Dog so please don't try to sell me there are no alternatives to guns HA ? 2nd Amendment is Great!

 

and again, please no offense if you don't care to reply your call But forme if you want to post absolutes rhetoric you really should use links so it is proven factual to skeptics. Does that seem fair to ask? Thanks. m

 

 

[frostbitmic]

Too bad thoughts and prayers don't work .... **** it, lets continue doing nothing, it's working well.

[Jrb1979]

5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

They're both constitutionally protected rights.

 

The anti-gunners have less than no right to demand the curtailing of one without an equal curtailing of the other.

 

,^ this guy ?. 

 

I really believe the good ole USA should go the Canada route. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal. All gun owners must register their gun and have them locked up when not in use. 

 

As far as the mentally ill issue and these mass shootings, health care paid for by the government like Canada would do wonders. It does go against the whole caring for your neighbor thing. Any time it has been brought up, you hear a lot of Americans against paying for their neighbors care. Americans need to get over the me-first attitude. 

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Because my degree in history taught me that history repeats itself and our founders agreed

 

Countries and empires rise and fall, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes rise and fall and America isn't exempt

 

A totalitarian regimes sole goal is to decimate the populations morale while controlling their every action... If you value the bill of rights, the second NEEDS to be on a pedestal

 

Because without the second, there is NOTHING protecting our rights from the 1st amendment to the 10th.. the second amendment guarantees us free speech and freedom of religion

 

The second amendment guarantees us the 3rd of no quartering of soldiers and the 4th of illegal searches and seizures

 

Without the 2nd , we would lose all of them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't recommend pulling a gun on a cop trying to search your vehicle. Nor shooting someone over a perceived infringement of your right to assemble. 

 

The second amendment doesn't guarantee anything. The Constitution does. You can argue that it might afford some ersatz protection, but your rights are guaranteed by the judicial system and not the second amendment.

[Buffalo716]

16 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I don't recommend pulling a gun on a cop trying to search your vehicle. Nor shooting someone over a perceived infringement of your right to assemble. 

 

The second amendment doesn't guarantee anything. The Constitution does. You can argue that it might afford some ersatz protection, but your rights are guaranteed by the judicial system and not the second amendment.

Our rights in the Constitution are given by God in my opinion

 

The paper just puts it into the history

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

37 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

,^ this guy ?. 

 

I really believe the good ole USA should go the Canada route. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal. All gun owners must register their gun and have them locked up when not in use. 

 

As far as the mentally ill issue and these mass shootings, health care paid for by the government like Canada would do wonders. It does go against the whole caring for your neighbor thing. Any time it has been brought up, you hear a lot of Americans against paying for their neighbors care. Americans need to get over the me-first attitude. 

 

I take it you're a Canadian. Only a Canadian could be this ignorant about the USA. Then again, I suppose you could be another victim of the NEA staffed public school system.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[Jrb1979]

7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I take it you're a Canadian. Only a Canadian could be this ignorant about the USA. Then again, I suppose you could be another victim of the NEA staffed public school system.

What is wrong with what I posted. What is bad about banning all automatic weapons and free health care?

[RaoulDuke79]

8 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

What is wrong with what I posted. What is bad about banning all automatic weapons and free health care?

Automatic weapons are already banned, and free healthcare isn't "free".

[Jrb1979]

Just now, RaoulDuke79 said:

Automatic weapons are already banned, and free healthcare isn't "free".

It may not be free but I am glad to pay with my taxes for my health care instead of going into debt for any surgeries. Then again that goes against the attitude of a lot of Americans in helping their neighbors 

[teef]

1 minute ago, Jrb1979 said:

It may not be free but I am glad to pay with my taxes for my health care instead of going into debt for any surgeries. Then again that goes against the attitude of a lot of Americans in helping their neighbors 

so far...you think only people in wny drink light beer.  you think because fans are excited about football, they don't like the summer.  now you show your ignorance on health care and life in general.  you're a low level favorite of mine.

[Beast]

1 hour ago, frostbitmic said:

Too bad thoughts and prayers don't work .... **** it, lets continue doing nothing, it's working well.

 

Why don’t you start knocking on doors and attempt to confiscate people’s guns?

[Jrb1979]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

so far...you think only people in wny drink light beer.  you think because fans are excited about football, they don't like the summer.  now you show your ignorance on health care and life in general.  you're a low level favorite of mine.

Explain to me my ignorance of health care? All I have ever seen is people in the US up in arms whenever they mention the government covering the insurance. All because most don't want their taxes raised. 

[teef]

1 minute ago, Jrb1979 said:

Explain to me my ignorance of health care? All I have ever seen is people in the US up in arms whenever they mention the government covering the insurance. All because most don't want their taxes raised. 

i think it has to do with how people feel about private insurance.  many, including me think it's superior, but the problem is the expense.  not everyone has access to it.  even payment for good insurance can vary.  for example, we have incredibly good insurance.  we pay $30 every pay period, (no more than $50) because we get it through my wife's work.  if my wife didn't work for the local school system, my out of pocket expense for the month would be $1500...for the exact same insurance.  

 

the quality of care is always under question with government based insurance.  my brother in law is from lloydminster. his mother was sick with breast cancer, and the stories we heard about care lacked something to be desired.  2 and a half hour trips to the provider, months to get appointments, etc.  in all fairness, that may be a lloyddminster problem.

 

not all people in the US are against the government regulated, (if that's the right term) insurance.  you have a tendency of taking the few things you experience, and extrapolating them to a large population.

[Jrb1979]

3 minutes ago, teef said:

i think it has to do with how people feel about private insurance.  many, including me think it's superior, but the problem is the expense.  not everyone has access to it.  even payment for good insurance can vary.  for example, we have incredibly good insurance.  we pay $30 every pay period, (no more than $50) because we get it through my wife's work.  if my wife didn't work for the local school system, my out of pocket expense for the month would be $1500...for the exact same insurance.  

 

the quality of care is always under question with government based insurance.  my brother in law is from lloydminster. his mother was sick with breast cancer, and the stories we heard about care lacked something to be desired.  2 and a half hour trips to the provider, months to get appointments, etc.  in all fairness, that may be a lloyddminster problem.

 

not all people in the US are against the government regulated, (if that's the right term) insurance.  you have a tendency of taking the few things you experience, and extrapolating them to a large population.

As far as your Brother in-law, it probably is a Llyodminster thing as it's a smaller town. I still would take our government paid system over insurance based system. I know the company would pay for my insurance as they already cover any medical in the U.S. when I travel.   

 

It may not be a large population against government paid insurance, but there is alot of them against more taxes. All you need to look at is a new Bills stadium. A lot of Bills fans don't want higher taxes to pay for it. 

 

 

[teef]

11 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

As far as your Brother in-law, it probably is a Llyodminster thing as it's a smaller town. I still would take our government paid system over insurance based system. I know the company would pay for my insurance as they already cover any medical in the U.S. when I travel.   

 

It may not be a large population against government paid insurance, but there is alot of them against more taxes. All you need to look at is a new Bills stadium. A lot of Bills fans don't want higher taxes to pay for it. 

 

 

yeah...you definitely need to look beyond how fans feel about using taxes for a new stadium to understand how they feel about "government paid insurance".  you need to look far, far beyond that.  also, the government doesn't pay your insurance.  you do.  with very, very expensive taxes.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by teef

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

,^ this guy ?. 

 

I really believe the good ole USA should go the Canada route. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal. All gun owners must register their gun and have them locked up when not in use. 

 

As far as the mentally ill issue and these mass shootings, health care paid for by the government like Canada would do wonders. It does go against the whole caring for your neighbor thing. Any time it has been brought up, you hear a lot of Americans against paying for their neighbors care. Americans need to get over the me-first attitude. 

 

Switzerland has interesting gun laws.  They have a lot of guns - 2 million in a nation of 8 million (including babies).  It's quite common for families to go to the range and shoot together.  " Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. ........ In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "

Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland - a lot of the same language people who favor gun ownership here might say.

But the Swiss have very specific regulations on guns.  They have mandatory military training, of which safe gun use is an important part.  Military veterans may purchase their weapon, but they must obtain a permit.  Gun sellers have to follow strict licensing procedures, and Cantons (roughly equivalent to our states, but the size of a large US county) issue permits and keep a log of guns owned in their jurisdiction.  Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" must prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.  And yes, guns need to be locked up when not in use and safed when being transported.

We require people to prove they can safely drive a car and restrict the licenses of people not able to operate a vehicle safely (impaired vision, interlock after drunk driving).  I like guns, I use guns, but I don't understand where the fanatical foaming refusal to allow any kind of regulations on guns comes from.

 

 

[Beast]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Switzerland has interesting gun laws.  They have a lot of guns - 2 million in a nation of 8 million (including babies).  It's quite common for families to go to the range and shoot together.  " Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. ........ In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. "

Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland - a lot of the same language people who favor gun ownership here might say.

But the Swiss have very specific regulations on guns.  They have mandatory military training, of which safe gun use is an important part.  Military veterans may purchase their weapon, but they must obtain a permit.  Gun sellers have to follow strict licensing procedures, and Cantons (roughly equivalent to our states, but the size of a large US county) issue permits and keep a log of guns owned in their jurisdiction.  Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" must prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license.  And yes, guns need to be locked up when not in use and safed when being transported.

We require people to prove they can safely drive a car and restrict the licenses of people not able to operate a vehicle safely (impaired vision, interlock after drunk driving).  I like guns, I use guns, but I don't understand where the fanatical foaming refusal to allow any kind of regulations on guns comes from.

 

 

 

But what about the criminals that carry handguns illegally? What type of test do they have to pass?

[stony]

4 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

But what about the criminals that carry handguns illegally? What type of test do they have to pass?

Nothing's perfect.  But, I can't see why more screening and background checks would be a bad thing

[muppy]

I saw today that donald Trump advocates policing social media now THIS post will definitely stir the pot.

 

Quote

Quote

Trump wants social media to detect mass shooters before they commit crimes

What’s more likely is that all sorts of speech — and people — would get swept up in the technology dragnets Trump seems to be proposing.

By Rani Molla@ranimolla Aug 5, 2019, 5:30pm EDT

 

 

 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/5/20754790/trump-social-media-detect-shooter-crime

[Gugny]

55 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

But what about the criminals that carry handguns illegally? What type of test do they have to pass?

 

Over 80% of mass shootings in the U.S. have been carried out by white U.S. citizens with legally obtained firearms.

[bbb]

5 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

,^ this guy ?. 

 

I really believe the good ole USA should go the Canada route. Rifles, handguns and shotguns are legal. All gun owners must register their gun and have them locked up when not in use. 

 

 

What guns are illegal in Canada?  

[John from Riverside]

Sorry late to this thread

 

I really dont have a problem submitted to a background check tor my gun.   I used to actually collect them when I was in the military but gave them all up and only have something for home defense.

 

I know that might make some angry.....but dont really have a problem registering or submitting to a background check.

[unbillievable]

9 hours ago, muppy said:

mr/ms unbillievable LOL very respectfully on the bolded can you please post. links? I don't know you from Adam why should I believe what you post? I need to see this in print no offense me not taking your word for it. Im mostly a football chatter not guns Im just going to kindly call you on a couple of things. Youre talking to ME now, just muppy. Its obvious to YOU that we need arming I choose to arm myself with a very territorial and none to pleased with strangers pitbull Dog so please don't try to sell me there are no alternatives to guns HA ? 2nd Amendment is Great!

 

and again, please no offense if you don't care to reply your call But forme if you want to post absolutes rhetoric you really should use links so it is proven factual to skeptics. Does that seem fair to ask? Thanks. m

 

 

 

Here's a link.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

What is wrong with what I posted. What is bad about banning all automatic weapons and free health care?

 

Couple of things:

 

1) automatic weapons are illegal in most circumstances already.

 

2) free healthcare isn't free. Even the idiots who want to expand Medicare to everyone don't understand that people on Medicare not only pay taxes for it, THEY ALSO PAY A MONTHLY PREMIUM.

 

3) individual responsibility is a key part of our culture. Take that away and we're just another nation of loyal subjects.