escorts
Premier Adult Entertainment Community
HOME  ·  ADS  ·  FORUM
Subject: "Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)" Archived thread - Read only
 
  previous topic | next topic
printerprinter friendly view    
Conferences > Special Interest > Community Hall > Topic #52807
Reading Topic #52807, reply 8

Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted rating
Member since 15-Dec-12
832 posts, 7 feedbacks, 14 points
09-Feb-13, 11:02 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.7
 
   "You would not even support a temporary suspension of voting rights?"

No

" While a felon is in prison or on parole, for example?"

No

"We shouldn't ask for any evidence that the person has demonstrated an intent to respect the laws he participates in creating?"

No

  alert top

 Second Amendment Rights (Part 2) [View All], MyPrettyKitty, 00:44 AM, 09-Feb-13, (0)  

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 07:19 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.0
 
   "I believe laws that continue to restrict a person's basic rights, when they are not even on parole any more, are unconstitutional."

They're not unconstitutional, because no right is unlimited. That doesn't mean they are good policy, however. I'm not sure if every state bans all felons from owning guns, but the idea, of course, is to keep weapons away from dangerous people. So it makes sense at least to restrict gun ownership for violent felons, even after they have completed their sentence.


Finch.

  alert top

escort4us escort4us rating
Charter Member
28762 posts, 77 feedbacks, 130 points
09-Feb-13, 07:33 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us escort4us profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.0
 
Paying a debt to society doesn't mean that you no longer constitute a reasonable risk.

Your behaviour doesn't go away with the time served.

We HOPE it does, but guns aren't toys.

  alert top

SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill rating
Member since 16-Aug-06
3697 posts, 26 feedbacks, 49 points
09-Feb-13, 08:07 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.0
 
   LAST EDITED ON 09-Feb-13 AT 08:17 AM (PST)
 
I'm no constitutional expert (trying to shake the cobwebs off oh HS and freshman-in-college class memories) -- and I won't even pretend to be one on the Internets -- but while I can see regulating the possession of firearms for some ex-cons, what I do believe is that once a person has served their punishment they must have the right to vote.

If society (a country) is going to force people to obey its laws, the only fair way to make those laws is to give ever citizen of age some say in the making of the laws. And the easiest way to do that is to make sure everyone has the chance to vote for the people who will make and enforce the laws.

The right to vote is fundamental to representative democracy. If you take it away from someone, why should they obey our laws?

  alert top

mexican_illegal
Member since 16-Jun-12
1673 posts, Rate mexican_illegal
09-Feb-13, 08:57 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to mexican_illegal mexican_illegal profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.3
 
The Constitution only mentions how the right to vote may (not) be denied. It doesn't explicitly say that people have a "right to vote". States may deny the right to vote for reasons not prohibited by the Constitution.

Not saying I like it... but that's how it is.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 09:04 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.3
 
   "The right to vote is fundamental to representative democracy. If you take it away from someone, why should they obey our laws?"

The other side of that argument is that when people have demonstrated a serious (in other words, felonious) lack of respect for law, why should they be allowed to participate in making it?

I'm not sure that would be my argument, but that is the rationale for denying the right to vote to felons, at least until they can show they have reformed.


Finch.

  alert top

SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill rating
Member since 16-Aug-06
3697 posts, 26 feedbacks, 49 points
09-Feb-13, 09:55 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.5
 
   "The other side of that argument is that when people have demonstrated a serious (in other words, felonious) lack of respect for law, why should they be allowed to participate in making it?"


I can understand that argument, and my only response is that I believe that to have some say in the laws that you are going to be forced to follow is fundamental to democracy. That is more fundamental to me than the constitution.

Ideally -- in the most perfect of all worlds -- every one in society should concur with the laws that every one is going to be forced to obey. But that is impossible in a society of any size and complexity. So the next best thing -- or the practical compromise -- is to let everyone vote for the people who will make and enforces the laws.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 10:02 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.6
 
   "every one in society should concur with the laws that every one is going to be forced to obey."

You would not even support a temporary suspension of voting rights? While a felon is in prison or on parole, for example? We shouldn't ask for any evidence that the person has demonstrated an intent to respect the laws he participates in creating?

Finch.

  alert top

Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted rating
Member since 15-Dec-12
832 posts, 7 feedbacks, 14 points
09-Feb-13, 11:02 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.7
 
   "You would not even support a temporary suspension of voting rights?"

No

" While a felon is in prison or on parole, for example?"

No

"We shouldn't ask for any evidence that the person has demonstrated an intent to respect the laws he participates in creating?"

No

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 11:03 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.8
 
  
Ok. How about Republicans?

Finch.

  alert top

Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted rating
Member since 15-Dec-12
832 posts, 7 feedbacks, 14 points
09-Feb-13, 11:08 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Testicle_Ted Testicle_Ted profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.9
 
   I'll have to think about that.

  alert top

SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill rating
Member since 16-Aug-06
3697 posts, 26 feedbacks, 49 points
09-Feb-13, 11:26 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to SanBrunoBill SanBrunoBill profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.7
 
   "You would not even support a temporary suspension of voting rights? While a felon is in prison or on parole, for example?"

Yes, I would for while in prison...I'd have to think about on parole.


"We shouldn't ask for any evidence that the person has demonstrated an intent to respect the laws he participates in creating?"

No, not really because if they don't respect the law, we put them jail. And personally I am very distrustful of the people who would be making this judgement. There is an agrument, and some evidence to support, that black/African American behavior has been criminalized, since the end of Reconstruction, which has disenfranchised them and kept they from fully participating in their own governence.

I believe this discussion is about the moral and philosophical justification of democracy. Do we want a society founded on just principles or not.

  alert top

Stevay4 Stevay4 rating
Member since 19-Feb-05
8329 posts, 17 feedbacks, 32 points
09-Feb-13, 07:30 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Stevay4 Stevay4 profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.3
 
Losing your right to vote to be a part of the country's ability to direct it's manifest destiny was intended to be a deterrent to becoming a criminal in the first place.

More than 5.85 million adults who've been convicted of a felony aren't welcome at polling places, according to data through 2010 compiled by The Sentencing Project. That's 600,000 more than in 2004, the last time the nonprofit group crunched the numbers.

The vast majority of these disenfranchised adults have been released from prison. Sentencing Project researchers found more than 4 million Americans who cannot cast a ballot because they're on probation or parole, or live in a state that withholds the right to vote from all ex-felons. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/felon-voting-laws-disenfranchise-sentencing-project_n_1665860.html

As we see time and time again with liberals consequences should not matter.


Aw Sucks, give the guy a break unless of course he a rich white guy convicted of some kind of ponzi scheme.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
09-Feb-13, 01:46 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.0
 
PrettyKitty, Thanks for your display of "rational" thinking Continuing to punish someone long after they have settled their debt to society is silly. Felons come in all flavors, not all of them violent, so that "Violent" argument won't hold an ounce of water. Not that it would matter in my book anyway. IMO Even violent felons should have the right to own a firearm AFTER they have paid their debt to society.
Why shouldn't Ex Felons be able to defend themselves or their families the same way the rest of us have rights to defend ourselves and our families?
America imprisons more people per capita than ANY other nation on the planet. It's clear to me that something is "wrong" with a society which allows that to occur.
CERTAIN Ex Felons CAN serve in the military defending this country all of us enjoy, but they can't legally defend their family with a firearm?? If anyone can make some sense of that silly bullshit, please step foreword.

I forget the name of the silly schmuck that insinuated I was a felon simply because I believe as I do. Hey Buddy, I won't dignify your dumb ass assertion with an answer. SMH.

*******************************
Mrdiscrete
"I support the position that felons should have the right to own firearms.
Once a person has served his/her time, they shouldn't be continually punished for their crime."

Doesn't the man/woman that got convicted of a drug possession felony 15 years ago also have the right to protect himself and his/her family?

I am 100% in agreement with you on this. And no, I am not a felon. If you have paid your debt to society, then that should be it. I believe laws that continue to restrict a person's basic rights, when they are not even on parole any more, are unconstitutional.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 02:30 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.12
 
   "I believe laws that continue to restrict a person's basic rights, when they are not even on parole any more, are unconstitutional."

It's not unconstitutional! There's no point saying you believe it is when it clearly is not. It's fine to disagree with the restrictions on felon gun ownership. That is a policy matter and your opinion counts as much as any other. It's neither right nor wrong. But policy you don't like is not unconstitutional just because you don't like it.


Finch.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
09-Feb-13, 03:19 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.13
 
>But policy you don't like is not unconstitutional just because you don't like it.

Plenty of people have held an "opinion" that some law or policy was unconstitutional, and upon court challenge the justices "also" shared the opinion that the law or policy was unconstitutional.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
09-Feb-13, 03:29 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.14
 
   "Plenty of people have held an 'opinion' that some law or policy was unconstitutional, and upon court challenge the justices 'also' shared the opinion that the law or policy was unconstitutional."

You are absolutely right. But this issue HAS been decided. The Supreme Court specifically said restrictions on gun ownership for felons or the mentally ill do not violate the Second Amendment.

Anyway, I do see your point on a policy level, but don't you think it's ok to tell at least violent felons that if they terrorize people with guns they forfeit the right to own them? That seems pretty reasonable to me.


Finch.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
09-Feb-13, 03:49 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.15
 
>But this issue HAS been decided. The Supreme Court specifically said restrictions on gun ownership for felons or the mentally ill do not violate the Second Amendment.

There are a few "grey" areas, depending on which state someone lives in. Some states have different "classes of felonies" (class A.. Class B) and depending on what the offense was.. a felon MAY legally own a firearm.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
10-Feb-13, 03:14 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.16
 
   LAST EDITED ON 10-Feb-13 AT 03:15 AM (PST)
 
"Some states have different 'classes of felonies' (class A.. Class B) and depending on what the offense was.. a felon MAY legally own a firearm."

It's not unconstitutional for a state to prohibit felons from owning a gun. That is not a gray area. That does not mean, however, that states have to impose those regulations--it's up to each state to decide for itself.

Finch.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
10-Feb-13, 10:29 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.21
 
>It's not unconstitutional for a state to prohibit felons from owning a gun. That is not a gray area. That does not mean, however, that states have to impose those regulations--it's up to each state to decide for itself.

It's NOT only the states. As I've said before...
The "Military" also takes the "logical position" that ... CERTAIN Ex Felons CAN serve in the military defending this country all of us enjoy"

How can anyone support benefitting from a military man or woman using military grade weapons, and risking being shot or blown to bits themselves, yet upon returning "HOME" these same military men and women can't legally defend their "family" with the same rights to a firearm as any other American citizen?? IMO that's just stupid.

If anyone can make some sense of that silly bullshit, please step foreword.

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
10-Feb-13, 12:52 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.22
 
   What exactly are you arguing? I get that you don't like restrictions on gun ownership for convicted felons. I think we all do. Anything else?

Finch.

  alert top

corvetteron corvetteron rating
Member since 18-May-06
11486 posts, 110 feedbacks, 212 points
09-Feb-13, 04:09 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to corvetteron corvetteron profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.15
 
   Do you ever get the feeling that no matter how many times you put him in his place, he's still going to argue?

  alert top

Louis_Bowels Louis_Bowels rating
Member since 21-Oct-06
2408 posts, 33 feedbacks, 62 points
09-Feb-13, 06:29 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Louis_Bowels Louis_Bowels profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.0
 
   >If you have paid your debt to society, then that should be it. I believe laws that continue to restrict a person's basic rights, when they are not even on parole any more, are unconstitutional.

Would you include sexual predators-repeat pedophiles, rapists, etc.

  alert top

MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty rating
Member since 29-Mar-12
1662 posts, 64 feedbacks, 126 points
10-Feb-13, 01:35 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
20. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.18
 
Well I don't think that repeat (violent & pedophile) sexual offenders should even be out of prison in the first place to be able to buy guns. But yeah, I wouldn't want to (necessarily) ban them from being able to own a fire arm either, for the simple fact that when you put an all out ban on something, it doesn't make it go away; it just pushes it underground. Criminals that want a gun, are gonna find a way to get it. At least this way it would be easier to keep track of. But this is just my opinion in general. It's a very complex issue, and I don't have a definitive answer or belief on the subject. Every situation is at least a little bit different, and would need to be judged accordingly.

A hard man is good to find!

  alert top

Louis_Bowels Louis_Bowels rating
Member since 21-Oct-06
2408 posts, 33 feedbacks, 62 points
10-Feb-13, 10:32 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Louis_Bowels Louis_Bowels profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.20
 
   Guns aside, I thought you were saying people who paid their debt via prison sentence(s) should be free to lead their lives without their rights or privileges being monitored or hindered.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
10-Feb-13, 10:43 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.20
 
Well I don't think that repeat (violent & pedophile) sexual offenders should even be out of prison in the first place to be able to buy guns. But yeah, I wouldn't want to (necessarily) ban them from being able to own a fire arm either, for the simple fact that when you put an all out ban on something, it doesn't make it go away; it just pushes it underground. Criminals that want a gun, are gonna find a way to get it.

  alert top

corvetteron corvetteron rating
Member since 18-May-06
11486 posts, 110 feedbacks, 212 points
10-Feb-13, 02:36 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to corvetteron corvetteron profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
26. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.24
 
   So you think they shouldn't be let out of prison but you're o.k with giving them guns? That makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts.

  alert top

Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete rating
Member since 20-Jan-07
3988 posts, 83 feedbacks, 162 points
10-Feb-13, 03:06 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mrdiscrete Mrdiscrete profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
27. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.26
 
"Some" people don't deserve to be let out of jail. Those people DO exist, and they're NOT all felons.

I just think the entire issue needs to be considered on a case by case basis, not the sweeping (not the one size fits all approach) As I've said earlier. Some states and even the military has granted ex-felons the right serve and to own firearms.

My opinion is just that "My Opinion". I may not agree with your opinion but I'm not going to lower myself by insulting you simply because I don't agree with you.

Discuss the "issue" not the "person".

  alert top

MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty rating
Member since 29-Mar-12
1662 posts, 64 feedbacks, 126 points
10-Feb-13, 03:48 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
28. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.26
 
LAST EDITED ON 10-Feb-13 AT 03:49 PM (PST)
 
I never said I think that they should have guns, I said I don't believe that an all out ban is a good idea because it would be 1.) pointless because the criminals don't follow laws anyways, and 2.) it would just be pushing something underground which brings a whole other set of problems along with it.

A hard man is good to find!

  alert top

atticus_finchmoderator atticus_finch rating
Charter Member
20171 posts, 57 feedbacks, 109 points
10-Feb-13, 07:00 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch atticus_finch profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
29. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.28
 
   LAST EDITED ON 10-Feb-13 AT 07:01 PM (PST)
 
"I don't believe that an all out ban is a good idea because it would be 1.) pointless because the criminals don't follow laws anyways..."

If that makes a law pointless, then why have any law at all? Criminals, by definition, break the law.

We don't prohibit felons from owning guns because we think they will magically obey the law. We do it so we can take the guns away from them when they are caught in violation.

Finch.

  alert top

Hardballer Hardballer rating
Charter Member
18513 posts, 147 feedbacks, 272 points
11-Feb-13, 08:25 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Hardballer Hardballer profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
30. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.28
 
   LAST EDITED ON 11-Feb-13 AT 08:28 AM (PST)
 

http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/User_files2/oq8zh03yk4tzd5jx.jpg

What yutz wouldn't schtup her goyim tukis?

(if a graphic is too small, on most browsers hold control key down and hit the "+" key a time or two. The control plus "-" key brings you back down.)

  alert top

MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty rating
Member since 29-Mar-12
1662 posts, 64 feedbacks, 126 points
11-Feb-13, 06:01 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
31. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.30
 
LAST EDITED ON 11-Feb-13 AT 06:02 PM (PST)
 
OK, I don't know anyone who started saying the gov was going to take away their cars after passing seat belt laws.

Moonshine first became illegal during prohibition... That argument makes no sense. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but wasn't Prohibition what started "Moonshine"? Before prohibition, being a distiller was a respectable profession, that many poor & less educated men who didn't know how to do much of anything else, supported their families with. When prohibition was passed it forced them into making "moonshine" underground. At least that's my understanding of it.

And social security... don't get me wrong, survivors benefits has helped me out immensely after my husband passed away, but make no mistake, the funds are being depleted, and no one can really say for sure just how much longer it will be around for.

To say that someone who is being extra protective of their rights is ignorant, is one of the more ignorant statements I think I've read.
But it's easier just to call someone names and laugh at them, then to make an actual valid arguing point. Sigh...

A hard man is good to find!

  alert top

Hardballer Hardballer rating
Charter Member
18513 posts, 147 feedbacks, 272 points
11-Feb-13, 06:50 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Hardballer Hardballer profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.31
 
   Its political satire. Somewhat sarcastic and edgy like all the best stuff. But satire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire


What yutz wouldn't schtup her goyim tukis?

  alert top

MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty rating
Member since 29-Mar-12
1662 posts, 64 feedbacks, 126 points
13-Feb-13, 02:03 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
34. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.32
 
Well maybe I over reacted and you're just trying to be funny I guess.

A hard man is good to find!

  alert top

blue_eyes blue_eyes rating
Charter Member
7143 posts, 44 feedbacks, 82 points
11-Feb-13, 07:02 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to blue_eyes blue_eyes profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.31
 
   ~ Moonshine first became illegal during prohibition... That argument makes no sense. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but wasn't Prohibition what started "Moonshine"? Before prohibition, being a distiller was a respectable profession, that many poor & less educated men who didn't know how to do much of anything else, supported their families with. When prohibition was passed it forced them into making "moonshine" underground. At least that's my understanding of it.

Moonshine has a long history... try the 1780's for the start of it.

http://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/article.cfm?ID=9297

~ And social security... don't get me wrong, survivors benefits has helped me out immensely after my husband passed away, but make no mistake, the funds are being depleted, and no one can really say for sure just how much longer it will be around for.

The funds are being depleted and expectations are that it will be in the neighborhood of 50 to 75 years before we have a problem.

What will be a problem though is that the "stealth" income tax that pays for SS will have to be paid back... since since Raygun's time the government has borrowed all the funds rather than upping the taxes paid. So now the federal gov owes itself (or rather us) roughly $5 Trillion that needs to be paid by the general fund.

That means we need to up taxes... either on all of us or on the folks that have gained the most from the run-up of federal debt. That would be corporations and the wealthy who have both seen their taxes decrease in the last few decades.

~ To say that someone who is being extra protective of their rights is ignorant, is one of the more ignorant statements I think I've read.

Ignorance comes in many guises... often made by folks who make general statements without bothering to check readily available info.

  alert top

MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty rating
Member since 29-Mar-12
1662 posts, 64 feedbacks, 126 points
13-Feb-13, 02:07 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to MyPrettyKitty MyPrettyKitty profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
35. "RE: Second Amendment Rights (Part 2)"
In response to message.33
 
"The funds are being depleted and expectations are that it will be in the neighborhood of 50 to 75 years before we have a problem.

What will be a problem though is that the "stealth" income tax that pays for SS will have to be paid back... since since Raygun's time the government has borrowed all the funds rather than upping the taxes paid. So now the federal gov owes itself (or rather us) roughly $5 Trillion that needs to be paid by the general fund.

That means we need to up taxes... either on all of us or on the folks that have gained the most from the run-up of federal debt. That would be corporations and the wealthy who have both seen their taxes decrease in the last few decades."

I blame the Federal Reserve and this damn fiat system for the majority of this financial mess our country is in.


A hard man is good to find!

  alert top

conferences | forums | topics | previous topic | next topic

· reviews · join vip · terms of use · privacy
top · help · faq    ©2014 myRedBook S.A.