The Time to Mobilize is NOW!

This is a discussion on The Time to Mobilize is NOW! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As someone who knows no different (we have had free healthcare since the late 1940's) I'm slightly bewildered by everyones attitude to the healthcare reform ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: The Time to Mobilize is NOW!

  1. #31
    Member Array Tint Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sussex UK
    Posts
    187
    As someone who knows no different (we have had free healthcare since the late 1940's) I'm slightly bewildered by everyones attitude to the healthcare reform in the US.
    Not wanting to get flamed or shot down, I'm going to refrain from adding any comment good or bad.
    I will tell you how it works over here as I have seen a lot of on US TV (yes we get Fox News) over how it works in the UK.

    You pay a tax, yes I know you hate tax and we do too, it's called NI or National Insurance.
    Its based on how much you earn, so yes the poorer get it cheaper than the rich.
    I had a good friend in the US who I met on the internet (fellow gun guy)
    His wife got sick with cancer and he ended up selling his house to pay his medical bills, his wife eventully died and I never heard from him again.
    This wouldn't have happened in the UK, the State would have paid all his medical bills.
    Its not a perfect system, I pay a private health insurance for me and my employee (112 month, about $175)
    Its gives me slightly better access to medical care, it stops me using up money that could be used by people not so fortunate to afford private care, and it covers me for alternative medical stuff like an osteopath etc.

    I'm happy to answer any question I can on State Health Care in the UK.

    Right your 2a Rights....
    This is how they will get you, it won't be medical it will be TAX yes TAX
    Typical liberal trick, tax it till it hurts then only the rich can afford it.
    Prob won't be firearms, it will be ammo and ammo components...
    That's my 2 cents, I think I have a little insight as we have had over 10 years of an Obama type government, I think they have modelled it all on Tony Blair and the New Labour movement.
    I'm not taken in..... I saw through Tony Blair and I see through obama

    Tint Bob (UK)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array dnowell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by carry ok View Post
    +1 here. Another thing common in Germany during the acquisition of, and consolidation of power by Herr Hitler, was the firm belief by most Germans that the warnings of Hitler's real intententions were preposturous. Never mind his writings and speeches clearly outlining his beliefs and intentions. That seems to be quite a parallel to events in our Nation today, in my observations. This most succinctly bears out the adage 'there are none so blind...........'
    Hitler's book made it pretty clear what he wanted to do. I've read Obama's books, and they make it pretty clear that he's a decent guy. I disagree with his views on guns, but that's different from him being a Nazi.

    If you're going to make an Obama-Hitler comparison, then do it straight across the board. Obama's books don't contain an evil plan.

    These "warnings" are on the level of the pants argument: Hitler wore pants, you wear pants, therefore you're like Hitler.

    I agree in principle that we need to be proactive about protecting gun rights. I don't believe that killing health care reform is the way to do it. I regularly write letters to my elected representatives, talk with friends to make converts, and donate to pro-gun causes. The way to move forward is by advancing pro-gun laws, not by being afraid of other laws.

    I'd cite the national park carry as an example of a victory on that front. I've been able to carry to a national park thanks to that law, where I would have gone unarmed previously. More work in that direction will make this a more free and more safe country.

  4. #33
    Member Array docman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    union sc
    Posts
    73
    To be the "land of the free" there sure are alot of persons "governing" my rights.

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,226
    Quote Originally Posted by dnowell View Post
    Hitler's book made it pretty clear what he wanted to do. I've read Obama's books, and they make it pretty clear that he's a decent guy. I disagree with his views on guns, but that's different from him being a Nazi.

    If you're going to make an Obama-Hitler comparison, then do it straight across the board. Obama's books don't contain an evil plan.

    These "warnings" are on the level of the pants argument: Hitler wore pants, you wear pants, therefore you're like Hitler.

    I agree in principle that we need to be proactive about protecting gun rights. I don't believe that killing health care reform is the way to do it. I regularly write letters to my elected representatives, talk with friends to make converts, and donate to pro-gun causes. The way to move forward is by advancing pro-gun laws, not by being afraid of other laws.

    I'd cite the national park carry as an example of a victory on that front. I've been able to carry to a national park thanks to that law, where I would have gone unarmed previously. More work in that direction will make this a more free and more safe country.
    I'll agree with you on the hitler comments, but that's only because I view him as no better than the fabled Jesse James. He's a major proponent of theft and nothing less. He advocates nothing less than robbing the "rich" to "give" to the poor. Quite a bit different from hitler, but bad none the less.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array McPatrickClan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    East of Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    612
    For those that are not persuaded, consider the idea of lead in ammo. Nobody really disagrees with (that I know of) the idea of washing your clothes after a lot of target shooting, along with washing your hands right away after you finish the fun time at the range. Why? Because lead can cause negative things to happen to you (cancer?, etc.) and it's not smart to just go on about your day, holding your baby, eating a cheeseburger, etc.

    Now, if I go shoot at a range here in Texas, I can do whatever I damn well please. If I want to skip the wash basin, go home & lick chicken grease off my lead-stained fingers, no problem! I'm a dummy but no problem! I live with the consequences. It's ultimately up to me. It's my right. No one has to write it on a piece of paper; the idea that I have to ask permission to be a dummy is preposterous.

    However, if we have a shared insurance plan (yes, all 300,000,000+ of us) then all of a sudden, governmental reps can start deciding that I must be required to wash my hands at the government installed wash basin at the end of the range door. Or better yet, maybe we should just outlaw indoor ranges because it's almost impossible to get all the lead out of cotton fabric... of course, you can stay functional as a range if you want to but you must buy an ionizing deionizer that removes 99% of all lead from your clothing. Mr. Range Owner, those cost $58,000. Can't afford it? Guess you will have to shut down.

    I guess you can say that's not an attack on our 2A rights... but the garbage policies in places like D.C. (nearly $900 for a "I want to own a gun" permit?!?) are infringement on the right enough for me to get seriously exorcised. If anyone so much as looks cross ways at someone when they are trying to vote, people rightly get upset. The right to use your freedom of speech to vote in peace is a protected right... no matter what else changes, you can always vote freely. Our 2A rights are the same thing: a civil right, afforded to every law-abiding citizen, to use as he or she damn well pleases.

    Why do you guys (who are not persuaded of the danger in this nationalized health care) think that we do not have as many members from California & New York on this board? We have a ton from Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Why not other states in the Northeast & West Coast? Because to get a permit (remember, it's a 2A right) you have to jump through flaming hoops on a unicycle while throwing $100s at a state rep behind protective glass in some government building. Our rights are already infringed on... so radically that a lot of you guys don't even understand the right as the great Founding Fathers intended it.

    Think about it. Right now, there is a serious study being done in Texas to see if the state will back outlawing lead in much of the bird shot ammo used today. You want to see the cost of ammo go through the roof? Outlaw lead. Restrict ammo components. Make it difficult for people to obtain the tools to actually practice their 2A rights, both in the field and in urban environments. Outlawing lead to protect (fill in the blank) should not even be on the table because it conflicts with a civil right. Don't want the speckled hawk to move 100 yards to the East? Sorry. Our citizens have civil rights and those are non-negotiable.

    There are three central pillars of our society, that if controlled, can (and almost certainly will) turn into spigots of regulation of virtually any behavior you can imagine, whether it is "enshrined" as a right or not. They are health/medicine, energy & education. If any of those three go 100% government-controlled, America is in big trouble.

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array dnowell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by McPatrickClan View Post

    However, if we have a shared insurance plan (yes, all 300,000,000+ of us) then all of a sudden, governmental reps can start deciding that I must be required to wash my hands at the government installed wash basin at the end of the range door.
    This is a valid criticism of nationalized health care. However, the proposal currently in congress does not put us all on the same plan. The only people who would participate in a government run plan are people without health insurance at all. It's called a public option because it's optional -- you can opt out of it. If you currently have private health insurance, you won't be affected. If you want to buy private health insurance, you won't be affected.

    The whole basis for your criticism is the assumption that we're all going to be put on a common insurance plan, under the same government provider. That's called single payer, and only a very small number of leftist senators would vote for that. Obama spoke out against that in his speech. It didn't make him very popular with the far left.

    Instead, I think you should look at your examples in a different light: anti-gun types don't normally go through complicated trickery to forbid guns. They go through the front gates and pass anti-gun laws directly. Fees, permits, and restrictions on gun ownership are their weapons against us.

    Anti-gun activists don't encode their plans in what-if scenarios for health care plans. They just go out and pass anti-gun laws, or convince bureaucrats to pass anti-gun regulations. Take for example your Texas lead restriction effort - they don't need to hide behind health care reform. They're just going out and saying what they're doing.

    I've been reading these gun discussions for years, and I've seen tons of far out scenarios about how seemingly innocent laws could be used to ban guns. I've never, ever seen anything actually come of it. What I have seen is that from time to time serious anti-gun laws get passed, like the AWB.

    When they come for our guns, we'll know about it. Since anti-gun activists believe they have righteousness and common sense on their side, they don't feel a need to be sneaky. They feel proud of what they do, and don't sneak around trying to do it.

    Guns are a really important subject to me. I really don't like it when people try to use my and others passion for free exercise of our gun rights, to scare us into supporting their causes. Also, I have to say that I appreciate your keeping this discussion basically civil. Things get pretty heated and I appreciate that we can have a basically polite conversation without namecalling and whatnot.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array McPatrickClan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    East of Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by dnowell View Post
    This is a valid criticism of nationalized health care. However, the proposal currently in congress does not put us all on the same plan. The only people who would participate in a government run plan are people without health insurance at all. It's called a public option because it's optional -- you can opt out of it. If you currently have private health insurance, you won't be affected. If you want to buy private health insurance, you won't be affected.

    The whole basis for your criticism is the assumption that we're all going to be put on a common insurance plan, under the same government provider.
    .......
    I have to say that I appreciate your keeping this discussion basically civil. Things get pretty heated and I appreciate that we can have a basically polite conversation without namecalling and whatnot.
    Hello friend. You are correct. The current proposal is for a government-subsidized plan (if we are talking about H.R. 2300, I think it is called) that would compete directly with private insurance plans. What I believe will happen is that the government plan will be so attractive (initially) that millions of people will get in on it. This will seriously cripple the private insurance companies and many of them will go bankrupt.

    Right now, you cannot buy a plan across state lines. There is a Blue Cross plan I want to buy that a friend has... except it is restricted, by the U.S. Federal Government in its sale & use. Only citizens in the state of Georgia can buy this plan. And guess what? It's about 45% less expensive than the same exact plan I can buy in Texas. I can only guess that part of the reason my plan is so expensive in Texas is because of the millions of illegal immigrants that live here because the federal government ended the guest worker program 20+ years ago.

    To your point about the "opt out" idea... I believe on page 11 of the bill, it says that no new customers may be enrolled in any private insurance plan, one year after the bill is signed into law. So that means you will be grandfathered in if you like your current private insurance, but if you change jobs, drop your insurance for a month, etc. then you cannot sign back up again. Your only choice will be the U.S. Government option!

    Single-payer is the goal... of course, with the majority of the American voting public against what shell of that we are currently going for now, advocating openly for single-payer would be political suicide. Remember, they (both parties!) are politicians, not statesmen! There are only a handful of statesmen in D.C.

    Thank you for your kind words... I do enjoy a good discussion and as I said before, I honestly believe this legislation will open the door to crush our 2A rights.

    BTW, there is an alternative. Do a search for Congressman Paul Ryan's ideas. I think it may be called Roadmap to Freedom. The Republicans have introduced approximately 35 bills to reform health care in the last year. All of them have been spiked.

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    "This wouldn't have happened in the UK, the State would have paid all his medical bills."

    You forgot to mention IF his wife could have gotten the treatment.

    In my opinion the major problems with the current healthcare proposals are:

    1. The idea that you can add 30 million more people to the healthcare system (notice they've reduced the number from 45 million because that number included illegal aliens) without raising cost and/or rationing services requires a suspension of disbelief.

    2. The idea that you're going to pay a significant portion of the cost by the government squeezing waste and fraud out of the current system also requires a suspension of disbelief.

    3. More control of anything in the hands of the government means less personal freedom.

    4. The idea that a public option will not drive private insurers out of the business displays a lack of understanding regarding the fundamental reasons businesses are in business. A business can't continue to compete in an industry where a major player (in this case the goverment) isn't required to make a profit AND has the seemingly unlimited resources of taxpayers to support there ongoing business.

    A company that is paying 15% of it's profit to pay for health insurance will drop that insurance if they can cover there employees by paying an 8% penality to the government.

    While the healthcare system in the U.S. isn't perfect 85% of the population is covered by some form of insurance. You don't radically change the industry in the ways being proposed by the Obama administration in an attempt to provided insurance for another 5% (that's their number) of the population.

    Here are some practical ideas.

    They begin with...

    READING THE LEGISLATION!!!

    Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.

    Develop a system of tort reform to reduce the amount of testing being performed as a protection against a malpractice lawsuits.

    Do what you can to squeeze waste and fraud from the system (this doesn't require the passage of mass new legislation).

    Honestly and accurately count the cost of any new medical insurance legislation.

    test some of the more radical proposals at the state level.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  10. #39
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Liberal tricks? How about the newest trend I have been noticing. If you don't like the cry and holler of your opponent, call him racist since the President is black. That takes away his credibility. I heard that schools not wanting to play his speeches are being called racist.

    As for the Hitler comments, I don't believe comparing him to Hitler is fair. I do disagree with not listening to people simply because they call the current actions NAZI-like. It is important to pay attention to the history of the NAZI party coming into power and how they did it to be on alert that it does not happen here.

    Excellent post Bark.

    Also, I thought Obama stated he was all for a single payer. I could have sworn he said that a few years ago. Did he change his mind?
    Last edited by Faitmaker; September 10th, 2009 at 04:30 PM. Reason: spelling and 1 addition
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    Liberal tricks? How about the newest trend I have been noticing. If you don't like the cry and holler of your opponent, call him racist since the President is black. That takes away his credibility. I heard that schools not wanting to play his speeches are being called racist.
    How about this for a trend. The right-wingers increasing their racist rhetoric, then crying foul when they get called on it. They certainly can play the victim card, can't they. Sorry, if you make racist comments, you deserve to be called a racist.

    As for the Hitler comments, I don't believe comparing him to Hitler is fair. I do disagree with not listening to people simply because they call the current actions NAZI-like. It is important to pay attention to the history of the NAZI party coming into power and how they did it to be on alert that it does not happen here.
    Any time someone makes an inane comment like calling popularly supported health-care reform proposals "nazi-like", the rest of that person's argument deserves to be tuned out. They obviously are so poorly educated that they know very little about world history, and are altogether uninformed about current events and politics in the U.S. Right-wingers who take that approach are just as idiotic as the left-wingers who called President Bush a nazi or a fascist.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Accuracy is King, but Monarchys do fall from time to time
    By CR Williams in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 24th, 2011, 06:22 PM
  2. Left the P229 at home for the first time in a long time
    By maddy345 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 8th, 2011, 09:57 PM
  3. Long-time reader, first-time poster
    By NIS350ZTT in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 9th, 2010, 06:14 PM
  4. 1st time flying with my Glock...and 1st time scare...
    By athos76 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 12:16 PM
  5. FOX News: Gun Enthusiasts Mobilize in Blogosphere in New Era For Grassroots
    By SIGguy229 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 29th, 2007, 09:48 AM