Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 100

Thread: Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter 2.0

  1. #46
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,830
    Generally I agree with you. The gov't should keep it's hands as far away from the economy as it can, accept in a few necessary areas. I consider health care to be a necessary area that has snowballed into a situation that's so unbelievably ridiculous that measures need to be taken to fix the issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by MasterShake2129 View Post
    As for people in poor health, shouldn't they be turned down for insurance? You don't wait til your house is on fire to call and get homeowners. If you have a poor driving record don't you pay more or get denied coverage?
    No, for a couple super important reasons (and just to point out, I do agree that they should be paying more for health insurance)
    1. Private hospitals generally won't help you if you don't have insurance (outside of an emergency-type situation). People in poor health need to go to the hospital. Super big issue here.
    2. People in "poor" health aren't necessarily in poor health. They're just more likely to cost the insurance company more money. Take my dad for instance. He had a liver transplant about 2 years ago. Outside of the medication he's on (which would cost him somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year without insurance), he's perfectly healthy. However, if he tried to apply for insurance, nope. No way. If he loses his job (and trust me, they did their best to try to get him outta there) he's screwed. He'll most likely have to apply for disability even though he's not even remotely disabled. All because he was born with a wonky chromosome. This isn't a rare story in the slightest. There's thousands upon thousands of people that have their entire lives (and the lives of their families) wrecked because the medical bills are too high and most often it's because of something they had absolutely no control over. It's not an issue of "unfairness" as much as it is an issue of other people massively profiteering off of people's lives in completely unavoidable ways.

    B)
    1) If you lock up your firearms properly that really isn't an issue? I don't live alone either, and my firearms are safely stored and locked up, unloaded, with the ammunition in another location.
    2) Call the police and wait?
    3) I'm pretty sure mass shootings would go down if everyone around them also had a gun to stop them...I am also pretty sure that you don't need a gun to commit mass killings and all of that can be obtained legally as well.
    Explain to me how a gun that's locked up in a safe with ammo that located in another place is going to help me protect my home in a sudden emergency?
    As you have pointed out, there are other methods to attack/defend yourself other than guns. I'm perfectly comfortable using those methods.

  2. #47
    Game Support Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,302
    You can't reason with gun nuts, give up. With them the penalty for a break in is murder, cos everyone is trying you rape you.
    Support email: utopiasupport@utopia-game.com <- please use this and don't just PM me| Account Deleted/Inactive | Utopia Facebook Page | #tactics <-- click to join IRC|
    PM DavidC for test server access

  3. #48
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,951
    The only people who need a gun for self-defense are the people no one wants to have a gun.

    It's silly anyway, because the gun control argument isn't really about gun control, it's about marking certain people as invalid and stripping them of rights - something the NRA is all for.
    If the feds really wanted to restrict access to guns, they have all the legal power to do so within existing precedent. The second amendment doesn't mean a whole lot, nor does the first, fourth, or eighth. It wouldn't have a significant effect on violence; street criminals don't care about the law, and rage-killers would switch to explosives or any weapon they could fashion on short notice, circumvent gun control like criminals, or learn how to bypass the screening process. The way the totalitarians are doing it, however, is intended to increase violence and push those on the margins into radicalization and exclusion. The occasional massacre is a price they and the people going along with them will pay for their vanity; and if by some chance no one rage-kills, they will invent false flags to justify further persecutions.

  4. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    25
    If you need a gun, you also need to know when NOT to use it imho.

  5. #50
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7
    Pretty sure Obama will be remembered as one of the better presidents of the last 100 years.

  6. #51
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    56
    $19,300,000,000,000

    Enough said.

  7. #52
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,951
    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

  8. #53
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ocala, FL, USA
    Posts
    751
    Politics is nuts. That's why I play fantasy games like this one. If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Great idea. Worked really well with weed!
    Long live Mehul!

  9. #54
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,830
    Worked pretty well for Australia...

    But that's really beside the point. I haven't heard any politician call for an outright ban on firearms. They want more regulation. Despite what's been said for the past 12 years, unless you're someone who is a significant risk to the public, no one is trying to take your guns away

  10. #55
    Game Support Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazyguy View Post
    P If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
    Worst argument ever. Outlawing guns works in every other country.
    Support email: utopiasupport@utopia-game.com <- please use this and don't just PM me| Account Deleted/Inactive | Utopia Facebook Page | #tactics <-- click to join IRC|
    PM DavidC for test server access

  11. #56
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,299
    the key is well regulated and strict gunlaws and changing the mentality of the american people. Big portion of the population is stuck with the "Owning a gun is my right i live in USA!!" While you look at countries like Sweden or Norway that rarely has any mass shootings but is in the top 10 gun capita per world.

  12. #57
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,516
    If anyone actually tried to ban all guns I would definitely oppose them, but there isn't. Nobody is trying to take any law abiding citizen's gun away. Most spend weeks if not months contemplating what the best gun to buy is for the job at hand, so registration period is a really laughable reason to oppose stricter gun control.
    Personally I don't see a reason for someone living in a city to own a gun other than for sport. But if you live in the country and have to deal with coyotes, wolves, bears and such it's a necessity. I do support shooting as a sport though because if done right it teaches so many things such as concentration, control and hand-eye coordination. A hothead with no control is a ticket to disaster.
    But again, NOBODY wants to or could take guns away. The question is just will you get the gun you are buying the day of purchase or a little later. If you need that gun today specifically my intuition tells me you shouldn't have a gun, not today anyway.

  13. #58
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,951
    Obama and Clinton most definitely want to take guns away.

  14. #59
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,830
    Donald Trump shot Hillary Clinton.

    See, it's easy to make up **** and post it on the Internet with no relevant sources to back it up.

    Here's a source showing how much Obama really doesn't give a **** about your guns (old, but still relevant):
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ming-our-guns/

    The only thing even remotely close to showing that Hillary wants to "take your guns away" is her wanting to ban semiautomatic rifles, which you don't need for any reasonable legal reason outside of a gun collection.

  15. #60
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,951
    Supporting mass confiscation is taking peoples' guns away. Anything less is really a waste of time and political capital. Obama and Clinton both support measures like that.

    What you won't get is any reduction in violent crime, probably an increase actually. You won't get any less police brutality because the reasons for police brutality are fixed and the inevitable result of liberal capitalism. The whole enterprise is designed to come to the consensus that some Other group needs to be singled out for humiliations, and with disarmament comes an inevitable increase in senseless brutality from law enforcement. This is my life today. I have far more to fear from the police and agents of the state than any random yahoo with a gun, far more.

    Obama's failure to basically destroy the 2nd amendment is largely due to congressional obstructionism. This is the ONE issue that Republicans have left to court voters in the middle, there is no way they are going to let go of it. This one issue is why we don't have a 9th SC justice.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •