Leaking v. Heroism
 

I don't see much debate here about all this leaking stuff going on. I don't know if most Americans even understand what the govt is or why they are so against it. That realization came to me after Obamacare was passed and these old geezers were protesting with signs that read "Govt keep your hands off my Medicare!" ???

Do they understand what smaller govt means? Say an F5 tornado or 9.5 earthquake hits you and destroyed everything for miles around. Or take what happened when Katrina hit New Orleans. When Bush didn't respond for 4 days, the country was outraged!! And yet, folks, there's your small govt in action! That's what it means. Yes, it would be great if there were no taxes but that also means no disaster relief, no road/bridge repairs, no police to call when some armed crankhead is robbing your house, no medicare, no social security when you get too old to work, etc. Small govt means that no matter what happens--save a direct threat to national security such as 9-11--you are on your own so deal with it. Well, hellfire, these aren't the pioneer days when you could throw up a little cabin with a sod roof in the space of an afternoon. A tornado that wipes out most of your town is just too big for you to handle on your own. If you think I'm lying, try it sometime. Without federal aid, you have no idea how much of a disaster it really is.

So all this anti-govt s-hit people keep spouting off today makes me believe that most of these jerks don't have any idea what the hell they are talking about. I'm no fan of big govt but I would be scared s-hitless to live in these people's idea of a democracy--loonies and conspiracy nuts who think a Mad Max future is just around the corner--talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look how many states are legalizing pot now. Doesn't sound that oppressive to me. Sure, I get fed up with the bureaucracy and the red tape and corruption and the gridlock and the stupid laws that don't do any good and Monsanto is an evil that needs to be eradicated. Yeah, I got it, thanks. But it's part of the price you have to pay to have infrastructure and I don't feel like going back to 1871, thank you very much.

So I'm disturbed at how people are cheering on these govt leakers, making heroes of them. Bradley Manning--I mean, was this guy a study in arrested development or what? Er, I mean Chelsea, sorry. What do his supporters say? "He showed us the truth about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan!"

Jesus F-uck! Where were these idiots when George W. Bush LIED to the whole world about the Iraq's intentions and weapons capabilities?? What were they doing when photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib were splashed across the news for weeks and weeks? What episode of "Survivor" were they too wrapped up in to notice all the stories about American soldiers raping Arab girls and killing their entire families, shooting innocent civilians and then planting guns or bomb parts on them?? Where was the outrage when Bush made the Blackwater mercenaries his own secret police force above the laws or both Iraq AND America???? They said nothing!!!!!

Now here comes this pathetic sexually confused soldier with a bunch of diplomatic cables he stole and turned them over to Wikileaks that exposed the WHOLE SORDID STORY OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!! Except what SHOULDN'T these morons have already known about that war that Manning's subterfuge provided to them??? That the war was dirty?? REALLY???? You don't say!!!

Do any of them remember the contractor scandal? Do you? Right after the war, the US sent in corporations and entrepreneurs to rebuild the infrastructure we had stupidly destroyed in Iraq and these people did nothing but fleece the American taxpayer for BILLIONS of dollars for works that was NEVER DONE (often billing the taxpayer several times over the actual cost NUMEROUS times for the same job and never actually doing the work even once) or done so badly that they should have gone to prison (these include showers that electrocuted soldiers, wounded soldiers housed in crumbling, condemned buildings and giving soldiers contaminated water--that last one was done by Halliburton, the corporation run by Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the United States who used that war to feather his own nest and where was the outrage?? To this day, BILLIONS of dollars have disappeared in Iraq and has never been nor will ever be recovered. Where is the outrage of American people?

So, folks, what exactly did ol' Chelsea-baby tell you that you shouldn't have known YEARS AGO!!!

Then there's Edward Snowden. I hardly know where to begin with this guy. He stole so many classified documents most of them TOP SECRET that the NSA isn't even sure how much of it he got. He left no tracks to follow because he was an IT guy. All I hear from too many Americans is what a hero he is for revealing this dastardly New World Order plan to the American people. Yessir, if not for him we all would have been herded into concentration camps by now and had all our guns taken away.

Once again, what the hell did Edward Snowden tell you that you shouldn't have known years ago? We knew as early as 2006 that Bush was intercepting emails and phone calls. Bush wasn't even getting warrants from the FISA court--which is ILLEGAL!!! What did these Snowden hero-worshipers say about that when it came to light? Here's what they said---NOTHING!!! When polled, most Americans said it was a necessary thing. Was this the same American people currently inhabiting the United States today?? I hardly recognize them.

Here's what Edward Snowden did: he told the whole world how the US govt collects intelligence to assess terrorist threats. In so doing, he told any and all terrorist groups out there exactly how to avoid detection. Those programs, for which YOU spent billions to put in place, are ruined. Now YOU will pay billions more to get new programs put in place because, whether you like it or not, they are necessary. We MUST have them or we are sitting ducks. In fact, we are currently at great risk because of this guy's bulls-hit.

"But he was a whistleblower and he should have whistleblower protection!" A whistleblower is someone who reveals an ILLEGAL operation. The administration's program was NOT illegal. It was reviewed and approved by the FISA court. Snowden didn't have to approve of it but he was bound by his job duties to shut his big mouth about it.

Now, I know many of you are not convinced. I don't care. But ask yourself this: What if Snowden had killed someone to get that information out of the country? Would you regard him as a hero then? Think carefully before you answer. If you say no, then you can't really believe he is a hero now. Why? Well, of course, he didn't kill anybody but what he did was still a crime by any application of the law in this country or any civilized nation. He assumed the logins and passwords of other high-ranking officials and got access to material he otherwise was not privy to and downloaded it onto thumb drives--something no one else was allowed to do unless they had administrator privileges. Basically, he lied his way into that material and then stole it by deliberately misusing protocols. That's no different than me telling you I need to read your water meter and then swipe your money or jewelry while I'm in your house. Deception is deception, thievery is thievery. And thievery is always a crime in the eyes of the law.

So what it boils down to is this: Do the means justify the ends? If you say yes, then you must still support Snowden even if he had killed someone to steal that information. If you say no, then he had no justification.

So are these men heroes in the end? No. Both did what they did out of some insane, self-destructive drive to be someone important. Manning did it because he was so confused over his sexual identity that we can only be thankful he didn't get his hands on something truly damaging because it doesn't look like he cared. Whatever he got, he was going to reveal and consequences be damned. You can't tell me he read all 700,000 documents he filched. Snowden? What can you say about someone who betrays his country claiming he wanted to liberate his people and then goes off to live in Russia (where he may very well never leave)?

It comes down to trustworthiness and how much of your sensitive information would you trust to either of these people? Both gave their word to not to reveal anything classified and both went back on their word. When all is said and done, if you don't have your word then what do you have?

Well, this first paragraph sets up the rest pretty well.

The elderly were upset by Obamacare because it's largest "cost saving" provision was just making massive cuts to Medicare. As in, you know, hundreds of billions. Your ignorance of this leaves me questioning the rest of this long, rambling post.

Now, that the people who receive this entitlement would change their voting behavior to accommodate whichever candidate promises to protect/expand the relevant entitlement is nothing new. This tendency was noted and discussed by economists at the beginning the last century; if you want to look into it, read up on Moral Hazard and, to a lesser extent, Rent-Seeking.

Just some constructive criticism here.
You haven't written an introductory post inviting debate, as far as I can see . What you've written is a diatribe, a rant, which makes it crystal clear on which side of the argument you stand, and from previous conversations I know you don't take a contadictory opinion onboard well. It seems to me then that there will be few who will take the time to argue with you, as you've made your stance way too clear from the beginning.

I feel a shorter opening post would have been better; this is just too detailed and would certainly make me at any rate feel that there would be no point debating with you.

So I won't be. But good luck with it.

Well, I'm glad you're not agreeing with me as I think the whole thing is simply too big for much agreement. It's a very complex situation. My opinions are just that. I could be wrong about a lot of things because it would be impossible for any one person to be right about it all.

Oh, yes, you mean the $716 billion, right? Ok, let's tally it up: Medicare money comes in a trust fund made up of premiums, payroll taxes and sundry other revenue. That money is then doled out to providers. We already know that part of that trust fund will be bankrupt by 2016--pretty much the rationale for the healthcare overhaul in the first place. So Obamacare will cut about $196 billion in payments to these providers. Started doing it in 2010, in fact. The providers agreed to these cuts because they stand to gain due to the individual mandate--if everybody has to have health insurance then you stand to profit if you're there to provide it to them. Medicare taxes on the wealthy are going to be raised providing $210 billion in revenue. Lastly, some $145 billion will be phased out of Medicare Advantage. These are overpayments that need to be trimmed regardless if we want to keep Medicare Advantage costs comparable to traditional Medicare costs. Then there are going to be about $165 billion of administrative costs cut out of the budget simply by streamlining the process. So there is your $716 billion and, if you look carefully, none of it is actually being chomped out of Medicare itself.

This might help too:

Here are five myths and facts surrounding Medicare and the ACA.

Medicare is ending. False. Obamacare is not replacing Medicare. In fact, AARP representatives say that Medicare will become stronger once the ACA is fully in effect. "Medicare's guaranteed benefits are protected in ways they hadn't been protected in the past," says Nicole Duritz, AARP's vice president for Health Education and Outreach.

Medicare beneficiaries must buy more health insurance to comply with the ACA. False. This stems from misunderstandings about the individual mandate, a key ACA provision requiring people who are currently uninsured to buy coverage or pay a penalty. Medicare is health insurance, so beneficiaries do not need to buy anything during the ACA enrollment period that starts on Oct. 1, when the state-run health insurance marketplaces open for business. Medicare beneficiaries can change their plans and prescription drug coverage during the Medicare open enrollment period, which is Oct. 15 through Dec. 7. Medicare beneficiaries who are satisfied with their current plans don't have to do anything.

Medicare beneficiaries will pay more for their medications under Obamacare. Partially true. Under the ACA, higher-income Medicare beneficiaries – those who earn more than $85,000 per person or $170,000 per couple – pay slightly more for their prescription drug coverage, or Medicare Part D. But this only affects about 5 percent of beneficiaries, AARP's Duritz points out. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries will see their drug costs go down as the ACA begins to close the "donut hole," a coverage gap that forces Medicare beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their prescription drug costs up to a certain amount. This gap is expected to be fully closed by 2020, but those who fall into the gap this year will get a 47.5 percent discount on certain brand-name drugs and a 21 percent discount on generic drugs until they reach the out-of-pocket limit. In 2012, roughly 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries saved an average of $706 each, the federal Department of Health and Human Services reported in March. As the donut hole closes, the savings will increase.

Medicare beneficiaries won't be able to see their current doctors. False. Nothing in the ACA expressly changes which doctors Medicare patients can see. Hospitals, physicians, pharmacies and other health care providers make routine business decisions and may choose to withdraw from the Medicare program, but no master switch is flipping on Jan. 1 requiring Medicare beneficiaries to leave their current doctors and choose new providers.

Medicare premiums are rising. Partially true. Medicare premiums are calculated by a complicated formula established long before the ACA, and those premiums rise annually. "Medicare premiums are rising because health care costs rise each year, but less rapidly than premiums for private health insurance, and less rapidly than previously projected," explains Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Those who earn more than $85,000 per person or $170,000 per couple will continue to pay more for their Medicare Part B coverage, as they have since 2007 – that increased cost is not related to the ACA.

Amid rhetoric of an impending Medicare train wreck caused by Obamacare, Van de Water emphasizes: "Medicare faces financial challenges, but it is not on the verge of 'bankruptcy' or ceasing to operate."

Dr. Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, affirms that "there will always be a subsidized insurance program for the elderly," but explains that it is a malleable policy subject to political will.

"What it will pay for and how much of it will be paid by non-poor seniors is, however, highly uncertain and will depend on politics as much as economics," he says.

Full article here:
Will Obamacare Affect Medicare? Myths and Facts - US News and World Report

So what do you want? It's my thread, I fired the first shot. Am I to invite debate and then wait for you to start it? Then you'd be whinging about that.


Thank you and thank you.

I thought debate is what you wanted?

i agree that 'small government' is sort of a rallying cry from ppl who dont really understand what it means

as for outrage, that isnt going to come until society is at the point where enough ppl are literally starving. you can claim there is outrage now that the whistleblowers have done their thing but its largely internet outrage. how many ppl rioted or really did anythin when the nsa stuff broke?? ppl just complained because in the large scheme of things in didnt change their situation in life one bit. our government has always been well calculated liars. for the record i believe the jfk conspiracy too

some day once our society keeps goin down this self destructive path, in the likely distant future, a small group of ppl will do somethin extreme. bomb some political buildings or something. their message and reasoning will be distorted and they will be almost universally hated in death because of the collateral damage.

not even sure what im talkin about or where im headed here tbh


i try to put any war related issues into historical context because its easy to forget the centuries of heinous war acts. its much more savage than the current societal climate suggests i think.

Did I say no one can debate this? HHBH did. Did I bite his head off?

TH thoughtfully came here to say he has no intention of participating, am I supposed to beg him stay?

Jeesh.

Nope. However I don't understand why people bother going into a thread saying they're not going to participate either. Why bother.

What worries me about the NSA-leakers thing is not the spying programs themselves which are overblown by internet bloggers but it demonstrates that we are turning into a conspiracy-based society. Virtually everything we learned from the leakers we should have already known. It was truly old news. But people are acting like this is some explosive new info. Why is that? Well, it appears to me that the nature of the way of the info came out is what interests them, not the info itself. A news reporter or network uncovering the US's spying operation some 7 years ago didn't interest people because it wasn't leaked by a govt worker. Somehow it being leaked makes ALL the difference. Ah ha! PROOF! We caught 'em with the pants down! Unless news is released like a conspiracy has been uncovered, people don't care. Our lunatic fringe isn't a fringe anymore. We think in terms of conspiracies now.

Look how many people believe in stupid stuff like chem trails. I know intelligent people who believe this stuff. I know reasonable people who think the Twin Towers were blown up from the inside despite how ridiculous the notion is.

Well, there ARE questions to be asked there, I think. Isn't it odd, for example, that two people up to their eyeballs in the JFK thing were also intimately involved in the UFO craze in the late 40s? Fred Crisman was believed by Jim Garrison to be one of the three hobos. While it's not likely that he was, it was interesting that his name came up. Why? Well, if you look up the Maury Island UFO story from '47, he was the supervisor of the guy on the salvager who saw the UFOs--and Crisman was military pilot in the OSS/CIA!! Look it up. Then there was the deputy director of the CIA, General Charles Cabell, who was fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was also the guy who released the memos to military pilots authorizing the use of deadly force against UFOs back in '47 or '48! Weird that these two guys would be connected by two entirely different events some 20 years apart, isn't it? Then remember that Cabell's brother, Earle, was mayor of Dallas at the time JFK was killed. Strange, eh? Could all be coincidence but is it?

Buddy, if you only knew how easy it is. Let me give a scenario that's so easy, it's amazing it hasn't already happened: You can order anthrax from laboratories or go to Mexico and collect it yourself from cattle. You can bring it back to the US and set up an anthrax factory in your apartment. You can order the equipment off the internet, no questions asked. You can make an anthrax slurry, fill a super-soaker with it and cruise around areas with truck stops and what not looking for pigs, chickens, cows on their way to market. Pull up next to it and just start wetting them down with your slurry and then take off and find another. These animals are sold in huge sale barns and will come in contact with thousands of other animals spreading the disease. By the time they show symptoms, a lot of these animals will have already been sold and butchered and that meat on the shelves in stores. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people could be infected before anyone figured it out.

I only wish you didn't what you were talking about. It's probably going to happen.

I think America is hurtling towards another civil war. The Reds against the Blues. The hatreds are out of hand.

Exactly. Anyone is welcome to come here and debate any view expressed here. If you don't want to, you don't have to.

What worries me is tl;dr!

i responded in bold

My point is, we already knew the govt was sifting through phone calls and emails since 2006. No one cared then. NOW it's this HUGE deal. Why? Yet people seem unaware that the govt has limits on what it can collect about you and yet business has NO SUCH LIMITS. Hence, internet companies know far more about you than the govt does and, worse, can openly share that info with ANYBODY.

A few weeks back, I typed my name and city into my browser just to see what would come up. Here's what came up: One website called "salespider.com" said, "[My correct name] is a person who lives at [my correct and current address]." That was the browser entry, you didn't even have to click on it to get that info.

I then typed that address into my browser and a website--may have been Zillow--told people what it cost, what I still owe on it, how long I lived there, whether my house was for sale and also gave a 3D streetview of my house. If someone was stalking me, he or she wouldn't have to leave their house to find me.

And this info is there for anybody to look through anytime they want to.

And people are ignoring that but raving about the NSA program which doesn't collect info that detailed and doesn't release what it does collect to anybody.

There was a case not long ago of some stupid kid who posted a vid of himself on youtube kicking a kitten. Within a few days, people got his name, his email address, his home address, his phone number and people started leaving him death threats. He want from laughing about what he did to worrying someone was going to do to him what he did to that kitten. Eventually, the cops arrested him and charged him with animal cruelty, as I recall.

If you think you can hide behind anonymity online, you're stupid. You have no anonymity online. If someone wants to track you down, they will. Whatever you do or wherever you go online, there's a record of it somewhere and someone out there knows exactly how to get it. And we give so much info about ourselves to complete strangers!!! I don't need to know your real name, I don't need to know where you work, I don't need to know what you look like, I don't need to know what street you live on or where you went to school. But I've gotten all of that from people I've never met in person. How many of them are also complaining about the NSA snooping?

I didn't. I got it from a book a guy wrote about Plum Island, a govt germ warfare lab near Long Island that's now shutdown but still guarded. He interviewed govt scientists that used to work there. One of the scenarios they are trying to prevent or arrest quickly if it does happen is the one i gave you. It is one of the worst ones they have because they admit there is pretty much nothing that can be done. They too express surprise that it hasn't already happened and believe it is just a matter of time.

The disturbing thing is, they don't really have to be downtrodden. They just have to believe they are. In my experience, the most dangerous element in the country BY FAR is the angry white male contingent. I run into these white guys who honestly believe they are the most discriminated against in the country. And yet these guys have houses, cars, families, good jobs, cabins up north, an arsenal of guns and ammo. flat screen HDTVs--what the hell are they complaining about??? How much more do they think they are entitled to and who do they think is keeping it from them?? Well...they think non-white people and blacks in particular have it all. No joke. That's why they HATE Obama with such passion. They may not admit it up front but anybody with a brain knows it's true. That's why they own so many guns. Not against the govt really (although it's easier to convince themselves it is when that govt is headed by a black man) but against the savage non-white hordes they are convinced will riot one day and turn society into Mad Max when, in fact, THEY are bringing it about through their delusional paranoia. Oklahoma City was one example of the AWM syndrome lashing out. I don't think that's the last of it. The next one will be worse.

well partly, i dont think many ppl knew what was goin on in 2006. i dont think the majority of ppl knew anything like that was happening until recently. i do think its dumb that ppl put so much online so its kinda weird they would be so complaining about this. but its like that video of the guy who videotapes random ppl on the sidewalk. the ppl always get pissed, but we are all on camera almost anywhere we go

i agree ppl in that case would just have to believe they are downtrodden and i think anyone makin a drastic move like that would likely be a white male, probably in their 20s, bad childhood yada yada yada. i can almost paint the picture perfectly in my head. the big screens and the lifted new fords and the weekend spa retreats will keep the guys you are talkin about away from any major move.

i do think youre wrong about the obama stuff though. tons and tons of white liberals out there and i dont think anyone has guns because of obama. theres solid reasons to have guns.

People knew what was going on back then. They knew the moment that the Patriot Act was brought up.

i doubt it. i bet if you polled the nation over half of it would have no idea

I wonder what they think the Patriot Act is and why Bush helped put it in place.

Where have you been for the last six years? Gun sales under Obama are out of this world.

Gun Sales Soar During Obama’s First Term: ‘He Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to the Firearm Industry’ | TheBlaze.com

Gun Sales at Record High: Sales Soar Over Fear of the Black President

Gun Purchases Under Obama's Presidency Four Times The Number Of Babies Born

Number Of Gun Dealers Increased By 3000 Under Obama | ThinkProgress

Obama's re-election drives gun sales - Nov. 9, 2012

Anti-Gun Debate May Be Best Thing For Firearm Industry Since Obama's Election - Forbes

After the Obama Surge: A New Rush on Gun Stores - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

Barack Obama, Gun Salesman of the Year - Bloomberg

Gun industry thrives under Obama administration despite warnings - NY Daily News

Still not convinced?

-There are ~14,869 more gun stores in America than grocery stores. Specifically, there are 51,438 gun retailers and 36,536 grocery stores.
There are almost as many gun dealers in America as gas stations. There are a total of 129,817 gun dealers in the country, which include retail stores (51,438), "collectors" (61,562), pawn shops (7,356), and importers and manufacturers. Meanwhile, there are 143,849 gas stations.
-There are more than twice as many gun stores in America as McDonalds restaurants. There are only 14,098 McDonalds.
-American gun companies made 5.5 million new guns in 2010 and 95% of them were sold to Americans.
-These ~5 million guns weren't nearly enough to satisfy American demand for guns in 2010, so an additional 3.3 million guns were imported.
-There were 16.5 million background checks for gun purchases in 2010. You can get a gun unless you have a criminal record or are evidently insane.

Read more: More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores - Business Insider

Never said otherwise. My question is, how many do you need? I know guys with 20 guns in their houses. Now what are you going to do with 20 guns that you can't do with 2?

My father had two. An old bolt action rifle and a carbine. That was it. He got rid of them when he caught me and my kid brother playing with the live ammo. He never owned a handgun but I could bend on that. I could see having one--not 10.

And assault rifles--forget it. No reason to have one--none. Unless you're taking out an advancing army these are pointlessly dangerous weapons have in your house. If you can't hunt or defend your home except with an assault rifle, you are the very person who should not be allowed to own firearms. Yet I know a guy who now wants an AR-15 because he thinks they're cool since the Sandy Hook thing. Admits he doesn't need one, just wants one.

And the funniest thing for me is that the NRA apparently has a huge database of gun-owners. The people most vocal about defending ourselves from the intrusive govt has a record on you if you own a gun.

ok maybe we are viewing it differently, i thought you meant ppl were buyin guns because of obama in the sense that they were scared of obama leading some type of tyranny against the people and they would have to defend themselves (maybe that is what u are sayin). seems to me like gun ownership increased because obama was makin noise about regulating them. my gun collector friend sold 3 of his 4 AR-15s for double what he paid for them because ppl were scared of what laws obama would try to get through. he has probably 40 guns and i agree its stupid but its his main hobby and we go to the range sometimes to shoot all his different guns.

Guns SHOULD be regulated. There is no plausible reason that they shouldn't be. And all your guns aren't going to do you a bit of good if the govt marshaled its forces against the American people although I cannot come up with a scenario that could begin to explain why it would want to.

All Obama wanted to do was ban assault rifles because they are far too dangerous to be considered effect weapons for home defense and make it far too easy for a nut who wants to go on a killing spree. You shoot somebody who is breaking into your house, you'd better hope that bullet doesn't kill a neighbor or somebody walking down the sidewalk or that's at least negligent homicide. I mean, a BB gun would be a more effective deterrent. If you don't think so, try advancing on somebody shooting at your face with one. For that matter, so would a paint gun--those things HURT!

There's so many things you can use for home defense that this whole "I need a gun with major firepower" is just a lot of macho s-hit. All these people afraid of Obama while at the time they are calling him the most incompetent, cowardly president we've ever had. Not to mention he was EASILY defeated in his attempt to ban assault weapons. But the shame isn't his. He tried at least. And another Sandy Hook WILL happen again--just a matter of time. I don't think Americans really care. We act concerned for a few days and then we're right back to the bulls-hit again. So it will happen again, there will be another debate but ultimately the gun lobby will win like always and everybody's happy until the next mass shooting.

you can regulate guns and have mandatory classes for anyone wanting to legally purchase a gun, thatd be great. but in my perfect world, every responsible citizen has a gun. im a good shot so if johhny doe wants to come into my home he is ending up with a bullet in him and i will take the risk of .01% i hit my neighbor. a paintball gun isnt goin to stop someone from shooting me


to echo what i ust said in the gun control thread, it would be stupid to not try and defend ourselves vs an oppressive government. if a 7 foot, 400 pound guy is tryin to kill me i am probably goin to lose all things equal but i will be damned if i am not gonna try to fight back and not cower in the fetal position

In my perfect world, no one would need one. How perfect is your world when everybody has to be armed for protection? As I've stated elsewhere, I don't care if you're a hunter or you like to shoot at a range. If you like guns for those reasons, I have no beef with that. I'm fine with that. But the personal protection argument is literally shot full of holes.

i dont hunt or shoot at a range. i own it purely for protection. youre right, in a more perfect world there would be zero guns anywhere. but thats obviously not possible, and since it isnt i think everyone should own a gun that is mentally stable and responsible

It's everybody owning one that is causing the problem. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Keep this in the Gun thread.....dont ruin this one too.