Because they want to get reelected.
Hard to imagine they are worried about that when they treat citizens like commoners, while they set themselves up as the aristocracy. Hence, the example of the ACA wavier for the aristocracy. Do you believe that they waived the law for themselves to win votes?
I know the sky isn't this color in your world, but a lot of us think the ACA was a small step forward, and we vote accordingly.
The sky color must be different in the politicians' world too, no? Do you think the aristocracy waived the ACA for themselves because they think the health care it provides is a step forward for them?
I'm not trying to argue over the ACA. I'm talking about the specific provisions that allow the aristocracy to force the commoners to buy something whether they want it or not, but the 'leaders' don't have to. That speaks to the politicians do not always do what the voters want, as you suggest.
Again, do you think they did that because they think it wins them votes? Does waiving the ACA for themselves represent what you think is just and right under your sky color?
yes, there is certainly corruption in politics and politicians can be counted upon to feed at the trough. Maybe they will allow themselves to have guns when they take yours, I don't know. Doesn't seem very important though, since there aren't very many of them.
Yes, the politicians were representing the peoples' interest, or yes politicians are corrupt? If politicians are corrupt, why do you think they wouldn't try to take away our constitutional rights?
Yes, because we shoot politicians all the time to get them out of office. That's just the way our system works.
Or, it's easier, with the people disarmed to tell them that the government will do whatever they want to, and the people will have the rights they decide we deserve. Or course, the leaders will continue to have their rights, plus the right to be corrupt.
Sure. Also, the flying saucers are going to beam you up and probe you.
Cool beans. Look right past the evidence, and with no counterpoint to make, ridicule whatever you don't agree with.
Do you really find it laughable that the government wants to take the guns, given attempt make with HB3200 in Oregon THIS YEAR, Governor Brown vetoing radical gun legislation that banned semi-auto guns (which was passed by the Cali legislature) and the list of prominent politicians that make no bones about the fact they want to take the guns that I provided above?
That seems like the very definition of having your head in the sand.
Why pay taxes or get a drivers license or go to school or get a bank account then? All those things just assist the government in tracking you down when they get a hankering to.
I pay taxes because it's the law and to help support the administration and upkeep of a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.
I get a driver's license because it's the law, and I need to drive to work so I can pay my taxes to a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.
I went to school because it is the law, and so that I could learn stuff that would help me get a job, so I can pay taxes to a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.
I'm having a hard time understanding how my bank account will help the government take my guns. As far as tracking me down, the president has already got that covered.
Given that he scans all of my e-mail, all of my texts and all of my phone conversations, then blatently lies about the protections in place to protect our privacy. I'm thinking my bank account number doesn't mean shit in the big picture of tracking me down.
Militias died about 200 years ago. If I thought having a gun was *the* most important thing in life, I guess I might get all exercised about the small possibility that someday our government might be much more authoritarian than it is now and might attempt to collect the firearms against the will of the citizens.
Really? The government MIGHT get more authoritarian? The government is scanning all e-mails, texts, phone conversations, and GPS tracking of cell phones. The government has put drones in our skies, light armored vehicles on our streets, and continue their never-ending attempts at further infringing on the second amendment every time there is a shooting that tugs on the heartstrings. Is that not "more authoritarian" enough to concern you right now? Head. In . Sand.
I'd say militias would form wherever governments get out of control.....if the militia can arm themselves. I think militias would form is our country was invaded. Without arms, though, you are right. THEN there are no militias.
Having a gun is not *the* most important thing in my life, but my constitutional rights are in the top three. It's a shame so many are willing to risk those rights since, once gone, you won't get them back.
At any rate, I'm sad to see that worrying about how the freedoms of future generations are affected is unimportant to you. I'm glad our forefathers didn't think that way, and found it important to give us certain inalienable rights.
Seems like people get worked up about restricting gun rights, so I guess you are right.
Seems like it's to be expected that people would get worked up when our constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Damned shame that more people don't stand up and be counted.
I guess if my sky color was the same as yours, everyone would just shut up and let the government do whatever is in it's corrupt interests.
Go Blazers
