You don't need to remove all the guns from the world. Just remove it from your country. Like in Canada you can't get a gun if you wanted to. They are brought down from the US. With the police shooting innocent people, that it happens and it will still happen whether if everyone had guns or not. Or be like korea, police don't have guns, they get batons. lol and instead of moving in partners, In korea they move around in like squads of 4 or 5. For example in korea its basically impossible to get a gun, its very very difficult.
You don't know the right people then. To remove all of the guns, you would have to stop hunting. This includes hunting by First Nations people, whose hunting rights are guaranteed by treaty. As well intentioned as you may be, trying to limit gun ownership will only disarm the people who are most likely to conform to law in the first place. On 9/11, the passengers could not carry weapons on the flight, and the airlines were not allowed to supply their pilots with weapons. In fact, the official policy in the event of a hijacking was to not resist. We all know how that turned out.
It isn't common sense. It's instant gratification lacking any future planning. Given that when the U.S. government takes over anything they screw it up, I'd say STAY AWAY!! We have programs in place for the poor. If they need to be tweaked, so be it.
Before we were leeched for 30% of our income, and leeched again when the Fed creates new money and devalues the currency, people would participate in this antiquated idea known as "charity". Yes, people would take their money, and put it towards their community, their family, their neighbors and their friends. Call it entrepreneurial socialism. And before we eroded the middle class, to demand 2 working adults in a household, we had crazy things like parents who would spend time with their children, and teach them things. Income tax is a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. You only have to see the growing disparity between the top tier of earners and the rest of America to understand that the system is out of whack, and despite the markets doing well (who but the affluent really participate in the markets anyway) and productivity rising (25 times growth since the early 20th century) we haven't eradicated poverty, we haven't solved health care and we haven't housed the homeless. Because most of that 25 times increase in productivity has been transferred directly to Wall Street and the statistically obvious upper/elite class of hyper wealthy citizens. Government fails in place of the free market. One size health care doesn't fit all, and if our bureaucrats are too stupid to read the Constitution and we know that many of them are totally corrupt, why are we giving them more money to make decisions for us? It's like betting on a one legged horse without a rider. Are we this lazy and apathetic?
The new workforce is being referred to as the "entitlement generation". Yeah, unfortunately it looks like we are. We are dependent on foreign labor.
Liberia, Gambia, so many african countries have in reality free economy. And that economy leads to corrupton. In a totally liberal country there would be nothing called corruption because everything should be paid for anyway right? You have millions of people that will not be taken care of by their family and are to chronic sick to work. In a free economy world, these millions will be left to live and die on the street. Is that ok? Do you like to have millions living in the streets in USA? Would that be good for society? Or do you see any other solution for these people?
Those are not free economies. They have licensing, tariffs, taxes and some industries are nationalized. You have me confused here. A capitalist or communist country? You are starting to sound like Will Spencer talking about the Muslim takeover of the world in 200 years. Why are their families not taking care of them? Do you not believe that these same people would not be able to find some sort of work? Do you not believe in charity? Or the goodness of man? Do you have any idea how many independent charities there are out there, and how much money and good they do? Not buying it. We had a very free economy in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century. And America thrived. Isn't that what we have now? Don't we have millions depending on SCHIP when if they weren't taxed so heavily, could probably go out and buy their own health insurance? Sorry, but your argument seems to be a lot of FUD, and not a lot of facts or relevant examples. I think I've made my position clear on this earlier. It has worked before, it can work again.
Ouch, dont want to sound like him And you had a massive amount of poor people in the USA in that period too.
Conservatives really should keep their mouths shut when it comes to discussing the money angle in socialized anything. Aside from the fact that there are already socialized aspects of our government that work... all one has to do is mention how much we spend on Iraq and ridiculous earmarks for pet projects and a whole new reality sets in. No matter how they try to smoke screen it with fear mongering higher taxes speak... it's not about adding taxes to fund social programs. If ANYTHING good has come from the war it's the fact that anyone paying attention to the $9 BILLION we spend monthly in Iraq now knows that we already have the money to fund pretty much anything we need to. I predict it won't take long before the conservatives realize the American people aren't stupid. They were just asleep. Crying "the dems will raise taxes to fund this" rings hollow now that the numbers are starting to make headlines. Sorry guys.
George, you obviously missed where I said I was a small government conservative, which is also known as a FisCon. In fact, if you read my POV in this thread, I dont know where you came about the idea that I was anything like the current batch of SoCons-Neocons currently in government. Unless you are just one of these people who scream PARTISAN in a discussion room.
You don't know anything George. Anyways gueriall, I just want to say that I looked up more stuff on Ron Paul I and do agree with most of the stuff he says. Everything except on 2 issues. First gun control. I see his view ,but I do believe there's a better alternative. Like you said before that his purpose of legalizing guns is so the people can defend themselves againist abuse from the government. Well I think that if you take away all the guns, including the ones by police mens and give them like batons in korea, or maybe a taser or something. Its not too hard for the people to fight back to government abuse and guns won't be necessary. Second Issue is healthcare, now again I see where he's coming from and his way is better than they way you got right now. I'm ok with not socilaized medicine, there can be more than one way of doing things. As long as those disabled people or people that are so poor are protected in some ways its ok with me. Basically I believe that everyone has right to basic healthcare. Now this is entitlement which Ron Paul says people should not be entitled to other people's fruits of labour. But the case is that soem people were born poor or disabled, some are not. Some are born healthy some are born with with lots of medical issues. Some are lucky and some are not. As a human being we got to watch each other's back and lend a helping hand when another human being needs it. So this is why I believe that even if you don't socialize healthcare you should have something to support the more unfortunate people. With that said, I can agree with him on the War Issue, Elimination of the IRS, Education System, decrease secretacy and all the rest of it.
I don't believe in all of Ron Paul's platforms myself. Many of them, but not all. But the key thing about Ron Paul, is that he is not a bought and paid for politician. He has scruples, principles and he has been consistent with them for 30 years. If you Google for his personal income disclosures, you'll see that he lives the same way, he is talking about all of us living. And when you look into things like the fact he declined the Congressional Pension, that he never votes for a pay raise, that he does so many free speaking engagements over the years, that he doesn't take taxpayer funded junkets, you get the idea that maybe, just maybe we've found someone with some credibility. And today, an honest politician is as hard to find as an intellectual in the oval office.
So, you confisacted all guns in the world. Then someone breaks into your house with a gun and wants to shoot you. How are you going to defend yourself, if you don't have something to shoot back with?
Somebody with a gun dont come to your house wanting to shot you. Somebody with a gun comes into your house to wanting to steal your stuff. Thats a very big difference.
In the US during the great depression the poor people started talking about rounding the rich people and killing them. If pushed to the limit rational people will do extreme things which is why government redistributes tax dollars. I like it but I see how its used to bring stability in the US.
Most people who come into your house to steal don't bring guns, but they could hurt you with a knife from your kitchen.
I'm all for gun ownership but in today’s day and age you don't need guns to defend against government abuse of power and free media is much stronger and will get you better results then a gun in that situation. My concern with removing the legal guns off the streets is that people who don't follow the rules will still get their hands on guns regardless if their legal or not.
The difference between giving to charity and letting them operate a soup kitchen and government taking your tax money and giving it to the poor in terms of food stamps is that often the results from the soup kitchen are better (more people are feed at a lower cost) then the government could do. According to a recent analysis done some 52% of working adults have some investment in the market. I guess you consider half the population wealthy? Also the difference is what people earn in a free market economy is largely a function of their productivity. Some people are more productive there for they earn more. As for the increasing productivity of people since the 1980s it has been nearly matched by wage growth as well. Not across the board but then again not all industries have had the same productivity growth as others had.