Gun law

Yes but giving equal weight but prioritizing differently isn't small governement its equal sized government! I'm all for fixing what is broken but changing it something without changing contribution level is bi-tri-quadro-partisan it isn't a libertarian endeavor.

Libertarians are wrong simply because the less power the fed imposes on business the more control business imposes on it's workers and clients. Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests?

and yankee I'm not even going to touch that one, pure crazy

the point is drew our government is going to continue on this path of big government and it will fall and America will be weak I prefer a small government that Carrys out its duty's well then a big one like we have now about to go bankrupt etc etc

tell me drew do you support even bigger government then the one now I shudder to imagine how that would fare the federal government can barely stand as it is now

and you fail to revognize that most big governments subjugate their people much more then some bussiness I can unionize to get better conditions in a bussiness what do I foo if my government imposes itself on my person

alright you are brainwashed its cool though. I'll try to fix you. The governement is ass-backwards. What you have is our officials in big government trying to obtain small government. Think about it breathe and continue reading.
1. When you have people who want small government attacking unions where does that fight for individual rights come in?
2. Your assessment that big government subjugates people to much more strenous rules your to businesses your right on the right on the surface, but wrong big picture. Rules and regulations that are imposed on people and businesses are in place to give the general masses the ability to be more free. If it doesn't it doesn't belong, and I don't support it. So regulating clean air principles, outlawing sex for individuals with fatal STD's, etc take away freedoms for some, but do they give freedom to others? Are those freedoms larger?
3. Saying that big government will fail and weak is short sighted and just words you say with absolutely no meaning. Are these accusations neccessary?
4. Too stop from going bankrupt can't you simply raise taxes? I think that makes enough sense

But let me answer your question. Democracy is wrong, people can't make decisions. Democracy is wrong people vote without an understanding of anything, case and point (you). So do I believe the government should be bigger? yes! How big? 1. Well they should compete commercially to ensure safe wages, control employment, ensure fair prices to control inflation.
2. The fed should dismantle state borders and unite us all as 1 single country. Lowering overhead and have the ability to impose fair rules and regualations to the entire country as a whole, instead of interstate competition. Governing the whole at once.
3. They should have the ability to set all standards of working conditions, not limited to wages, safety, environmental standards, and work grade wages, hours of employment, mandotary benefits to employees, etc.
4. They should control and dictate foriegn trade.
5. They should be able to make large investments into research and development.
6. They should be allowed to continue to make laws that continue to ensure people are not discriminated against

There's probably more but I wasted a lot time posting here today. The obvious remark most conservatives like yourself would say is how are businesses going to function with such bad conditions. But it's simple, this would eradicate the social responsibility factor going back to scarlet's post. A business that makes money is a good business. When all they have to do is follow the law and make money, they can focus on just making money all else would be gone. Governement should be big enough that everyone only has to worry about what it is they are supposed to be doing with their lives. oh yeah and no welfare. And no guns

raise taxes why so we can buy a huge military and fight a losing war on drugs so we can provide people with ineffective welfare systems so we can subsidize farms so farmers in Africa don't go out of bussiness so we can pay the salarys of an endless bureaucracy that is my problem with our big government id like to see a return to pre WW2 America wouldn't you I don't really have a problem with regulating busssiness don't know how you got that

"...no welfare. And no guns" Regulating business is also big government

"Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests?"

There's a lot wrong with this way of looking at things.

no there isn't. How so? Blah blah about businesses making money is good for the people? Because it only is sometimes, and with the stregnth of top-down economics it is rarely the case

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

2. The fed should dismantle state borders and unite us all as 1 single country. Lowering overhead and have the ability to impose fair rules and regualations to the entire country as a whole, instead of interstate competition. Governing the whole at once.<!-/Quote-!>

Of course Drew thinks the U.S. should ban firearms.

You left out the Constitution, you need to dismantle that first.

@ alex: I agree on getting back to a pre-WW2 or immediate post-WW2 America.
@ Yankee: I'm with you on the gun issues.
@ most of the rest of you, (you know who you are), proponents of an overshadowing central government: (sarcasm alert: ) Yes, we need a large, controlling central government watching over us from cradle to grave! How else do we survive except under Big Brother's benevolent gaze and attention? Everyone knows we can't make it on our own, Only a central government in control of every aspect of our lives even makes it possible to get from day to day. we should all just give all our income to Big Brother and believe that he will dole out to us what is deemed necessary. After all, surely a controlling central authority knows better than we do what to do with our money.

(sarcasm continues): anyone found trying to better his own life or make a better life for his family shall be arrested and prosecuted. After all, he must be taking more than his share, even if he works harder to get it. Prosecute him for robbery of the populace!
And gun control works! There has not been one murder in Washington, D.C. or New York City in 35 years, ever since they banned guns there. The criminals just gave up in chagrin and commented that they guessed they were out of business, because the Law said no guns. There has not even been a mugging in living memory. It was made illegal, you see. And the drug war? Big Brother won that one long ago. There has not been an overdose recorded anywhere in history for at least 75 years. There can't have been; abuse of drugs is illegal, therefore it does not exist.

(sarcasm continues): How about we just let Big Brother care for us completely, and make our life blissful and care-free by letting the central government make everything illegal that offends SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. This would indeed be a wonderful state of affairs; imagine, prosecution and imprisonment for such offensive behavior as talking too loudly, whispering (they might be conspiring, doncha know), dressing too stylishly, thus causing envy in the other subjects (no longer citizens, you see), dressing too casually, eating meat, eating peanuts, smoking anything, drinking any alcohol, drinking milk (which Big Brother knows is obtained by exploiting cows), being too fat, being too anorexic, or just plain ugly. Listening to any music or reading any material not approved by the Big Brother Federal Board of Education, Political Correctness, and Tolerance. Also enslaving any animal of the genus Canis or Felis, or hell, any pet at all. Wearing leather should be good for a 20-year sentence at least. Ditto silk. Ditto wool, from the poor exploited sheep.
With about 75% of the population being criminals by fiat (the other 25% constitute Big Brother), one wonders where Big Brother, in his benevolence, will put them? How about we just turn Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas into one giant concentration camp? There, Big Brother could keep a watchful and benevolent eye on the 200 million criminals inhabiting the erstwhile United States, and "re-educate" as many as he felt were worthy.

(sarcasm continues): Some of course will be deemed oincapable of rehabilitation, and Big Brother will protect us all from them. These felons would include entrepreneurs, patriots, recidivist defenders of the Constitution, and Christians. Especially those goody types which sacrifice time and money to bring comfort to the dying, food to the starving, shelter to the homeless, and other help to those who need it. No, no, there will be no need under Big Brother. In the re-education camps we will learn that (A) Nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak. (B) A crust of bread is better than nothing. Thus, (C) A crust of bread is better than a thick, juicy steak. When they have fully learned Big Brother's wisdom, they MAY be allowed to perform certain menial tasks. Of course, we must do our part to help Big Brother. All subjects will be encouraged, nay, REQUIRED, to inform on family, friends, neighbors, and total strangers. If the informant quota is not reached, the subject will be denied the next ration card (did I mention that such bland food as is deemed not offensive or dangerous by the Central Government will be rationed? Oh, yes,)
Oyher things controlled by Big brother would include, but are not limited to (for there is no limit to Big Brother's encompassing benevolence): Any radio program not sanctioned by The Central Committee for Inoffensiveness and Non-Controversy; any television program conaining any sex, violence, offensive language (any word offensive to ANYONE); programs with too much educational value, any television program not sanctioned by the Central Comittee as being totally bland, inoffensive, and without any interresting qualities whatsoever, as interest is just another word for controversy.
I suppose that the motto of such a totalitarian benevolence might be that uttered by one who tried something similar in the past: " Eine Volk, Eine Fuhrer, Eine Reich!" ("One People, One Leader, One Nation!")

(sarcasm ends): If this giant central all-controlling entity comes to pass, it will only be after thousands of freedom-loving Americans of all ethnicities and backgrounds have given our lives in an attempt to stop it. Life in such a "Paradise" wouldn't be worth living anyway. Start thinking before you advocate Big Brotherism, people. Any government that has the power to outlaw things you don't approve of, and re-distribute wealth as you deem fit, also has the power to deprive YOU of your favorite things, re-distibute all of YOUR wealth, and outlaw YOU.

All of that was just nonsense, even after the sarcasm ends. Just because the government has and currently has the power to tax uncontrobably doesn't mean it will happen. Just because it can ban your favorite things doesn't mean it will. And it already has outlawed everyone. -<reference, I don't get due process if they just call me a terrorist first. And everyone seems to be terrorist so...

@Alex- Yup dismantle the constitution. Fine not really, but I along with 80% of the country don't care at all about the constitution if the constitution holds back progress then change it so it doesn't. And yes state get rid of state borders, things shouldn't be illegal in parts of the country and not in other parts. Some states shouldn't be in a situation that there ecomonic situation is so broken they can't recover while other states can waste resources. This segregation will divide the country and states like alaska and texas has already tried to succeed. Probably would have been good, but... we are the UNITED states of America yet the more power those states have the more divided we are

I see your point about States but they have a purpose they are all different the ones that are different in a good way people will live in enhancing the States power therefore enhancing the power of a good America while the bad States will grow weak and wont have so much affect

and to tell you the truth I dont give a shit about terrorists rights I don't give a shit about anyones rights if they go around and kill people indiscriminately weather they are American Canadian Chinese or arabic I think its a non issue

we need good old fashioned justice I guarantee this Holmes fellow is just going to sit around for 20 years causing everyone problems and draining tax dollars before we lethally inject him when we really should have just shot him right there....

Drew: Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests?

Jojo: There's a lot wrong with this way of looking at things.

Drew: no there isn't. How so?

Jojo: You're giving the choice about which type of institutions should be making your decisions, business or government, but leaving out the one that's most important for most people: yourself. So you're posing a false choice.

Second, you imply that businesses only ("ONLY") care about profits. That's not true. Most businesses care about the quality of their product, and the satisfaction of their customers. Many also care about the welfare of their employees and of the community in which they do business.

Third, you compare the motivations of business and government institutions asymmetrically. You compare what you think the motivation of business actually is, profit, to what you think the motivation of government institutions should be, our best interests. It's unrealistic to believe that people and institutions behave the way you think they are supposed to behave. Your skepticism of business is spot on, but you should apply the same skepticism to government or risk being naive.It's worth giving considerable thought to what the motivations of the people in government bureaucracies actually are, from the lower level workers through the middle management and up to the higher levels of management and control and also the elected officials who create and fund them.

You should give a damn about terrorists rights bud. The emerging trend is to call people like Holmes domestic terrorists. Guess what? classified as a terrorist you lose a lot of rights, and if needed, to be sure not to infringe your constitution and law, you can just be sent to Cuba lol. And you know the law doesnt need much on you to label you a terrorist, joking about a bomb in an airport, because you had one too many beers, should do it nicely.

You'll see. The need for national security will remove your guns from you eventually where every citizen could be a potential home grown terrorist. If you're going to defend yourselves from a tyrannical government you had better start now...

No? Thought so...just a load of rhetoric all this defending stuff isnt it.

*sigh why cant things be like they used to be simple logical justice now everyone is using to much precedent and not enough sense

And who decides what is logical and what isnt? There are always 2 sides to an arguement. I guess precedent is good, liking learning from experience. Aren't we trying to make justice fairer for all? Thats why trials get so convoluted and long winded, although it seems like common sense has gone out of the window. So roll on precedence, it's avoiding repetition. And can still be challenged if there is a good arguement to be made.

Jo, I'm not so sure about your reasoning there. I would guess most corporate strategy that looks like caring for workforce, quality etc is profit orientated because it improves the brand marque, people pay more for quality, happy workers produce more and so on. And in the UK many commercial developments HAVE to provide benefits to the community to get permission to operate within that area.

And as for making your own decisions within this context, well I feel like that is next to impossible. What can I do about bank rates, utility costs, govt. spending etc etc.

Thirdly, hmmmm, yes, I certainly would be very suspicious of what politicians, bureaucrats and the like tell me (except Boris Johnson of course, my main man!). Not surprising seeing as how they have been caught lying so many times...

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

@Alex- Yup dismantle the constitution. Fine not really, but I along with 80% of the country don't care at all about the constitution if the constitution holds back progress then change it so it doesn't.<!-/Quote-!>

Trying to set up your own National Socialist American Workers Party aren't you Drew.

And you are flat wrong in your statement that 80% of the people don't care about the Constitution.

That's one of the reasons the Patriot Act will not be renewed at some point now that everyone finally opening their eyes.

The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to dissolve State Borders and it never will.

IDK how to quote yet but.....

"If you're going to defend yourselves from a tyrannical government you had better start now..."

Be careful with those words. The 99% marches were just the begining. Its being geared up. This aint illuminati shit im talking. This is shit i see with my own eyes and am in some cases involved in and proudly say it to any goverment official. All its going to take is a little push or for someone to get pissed off....and it begins slowly but picks up over time. Cops dying, Citizen snipers, soldiers dropping from the military.

People are waking up to alot. And this is what i make of it.

The goverment recognises this. And they wish to do exactly what you say do. Theres been more shootings in this country in the last month then i can count. In my hometown, then colorado, the temple, and i seen on the news a man shooting at ongoing vehicles on a highway. Now i cant say for sure these shootings are goverment sponsered, so dont think im promoting fully what im about to say. This is a THEORY.

The goverment set this things up to happen to bring up the conversation og gun control and even possibly complete banning of guns. They do this and say there protecting freedom, just like they use 9/11 to justify wars for oil. They even used Lil Waynes video to once again do whatever the hell it is they do when they put it out there in the public like that. Also there was a preview of a movie called gangsters before the batman movie and the guys shot up a theature. Weird.

No more guns. No more threats from the people. Complete domination. But thats just a theory. Another is they were not goverment sponsered and once again just a weird coincedence.

My original point, the ones waking up and getting pissed off just might start doing the fighting agaisnt this tyranical goverment Crafty. But i dont think it will be on a grand scale. Too late for that. But try taking away guns and i dont know....might be big enough to make national headlines

Oh...and a hell of alot more than 20% of the citizens of this country care about the constitution.

So could two states theoretically decide to merge, eliminate their borders and become one?

And don't underestimate the intelligence of the people in power. If subdueing the population was their aim, then they would surely achieve it, or maybe they already are. You would have to ask Murdoch and his cronies.

They will acheive it. Im saying not without a fight. No matter how fruitless and small it may be. Of course we will be made to look like terrorist. Which if we kill innocent people we will be. Theres no stoppin it really. They have won. We have lost. Im just not ready to give up the only protection i have. Even tho i'll end being caught and killed in the end. At least i can take one or two with me.