My take on Sanders voters.

[JoeB131]

Of course it's a foolish risk to take, but consider:

Is it really government's job to remove risk from your life?

It's foolish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Is it government's job to force one on you?
It's foolish to smoke tobacco. Is it really government's job to deny it to you?
It's foolish to eat too much and exercise too little. Is it really government's job to force it on you?
It's foolish to jump off a tall building, hoping your parachute has time to open and you don't get blown into the side of the building. Is it government's job to stop you?
It's foolish to build and drive increasingly powerful cars, hoping to become the latest land speed record holder. Is it government's job to prevent you from trying?

You will get fined for not wearing a helmet.
You will get arrested if you try to jump off a tall building, with or without a parachute.
The government does regulate who can buy tobacco, so Tobacco companies can't hook kids.
The government does regulate what kind of cars are "Street legal".

So we've already crossed many of the lines that Libertarian Children think should be there, and we are better off for it.

 

[hadit]

Of course it's a foolish risk to take, but consider:

Is it really government's job to remove risk from your life?

It's foolish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Is it government's job to force one on you?
It's foolish to smoke tobacco. Is it really government's job to deny it to you?
It's foolish to eat too much and exercise too little. Is it really government's job to force it on you?
It's foolish to jump off a tall building, hoping your parachute has time to open and you don't get blown into the side of the building. Is it government's job to stop you?
It's foolish to build and drive increasingly powerful cars, hoping to become the latest land speed record holder. Is it government's job to prevent you from trying?

You will get fined for not wearing a helmet.
You will get arrested if you try to jump off a tall building, with or without a parachute.
The government does regulate who can buy tobacco, so Tobacco companies can't hook kids.
The government does regulate what kind of cars are "Street legal".

So we've already crossed many of the lines that Libertarian Children think should be there, and we are better off for it.

I deliberately mixed things into that list that are illegal along with things that are not. For example, attempting to set a land speed record has nothing to do with a car being street legal, so that's out on its face (Seriously? You really thought it had anything to do with being street legal?). There are times and places you can legally jump off a tall bridge, which also eliminates that argument. The point is, you appear to come down on the side of believing that it IS the government's job to protect us from ourselves, which puts you in the statist camp, and which makes you vulnerable to the INEVITABLE overreach when someone in government decides to exercise their power to make you do something or prevent you from doing something that you enjoy and believe that the exercise of which no one should abridge. That means that at some point, a bureaucrat is going to interpret a standing law in such a way as to abridge your freedom to do something you think is harmless and like to do, and you will be unable to do anything about it other than hypocritically rage that it is not right or fair.

Government, once it attains power, not only does not freely give up that power, but will increase the use of that power. Convince me otherwise.

 

[hadit]

Same tired religious bigotry from the same tired religious bigot.

Actually, the point went right over your head.

The thing about the bible stories is you have these "12 losers who can't find a job" hanging with Jesus, (With apologies to Sam Kinneson) and after Jesus performs miracle after miracle, they still doubt. In fact, they are a largely shiftless bunch until AFTER Jesus goes to heaven and they get the Jesus Powers through the Holy Spirit... Peter Denies him, Thomas Doubts him, Judas betrays him. It seems like they are more story creations than real people.

You're forgetting something. You pay that much whether you get sick or not. You pay the same whether you make good health choices or destroy your body through neglect and bad health practices. Under the American system, you can save a lot if you take care of yourself, and you can choose to buy more insurance than you need or less. It's up to you. You, OTOH, don't have that choice.

Look, we got another Medical Calvinist in the House. Hey, remember Jim Fixx? He was the guy who was big into running and healthy living... and he keeled over and died of a heart attack at 52.

Jim Fixx - Wikipedia

Are you content then with your government superiors making choices for you because they know better than you what's good for you? Nice anecdote, BTW. Is that really informative?

I think this was meant for me. Check the names in the reply it got mixed up a bit. My replies were the previous 2. To answer your question. As you acknowledged some people make dumb choices, so yes the government in some cases does know better what's good for you than you yourself do.

To make it less hypothetical. When it comes to health care and health insurance. I don't care if it's private industry or my government who takes responsibility for it. The only thing I care about is what it covers and how much it costs me. It just happens that the government gets a better result since your for-profit system costs about twice as much covers less and leaves millions uninsured. If the price for that is that I pay an equal amount at 20 and at 60 I can only say "who cares".

Should stupidity be illegal? And, if so, who should decide what is stupid and thus should be illegal?

There are reasons why healthcare costs more in this country that have nothing to do with the government not running the whole thing. Pharmaceuticals, for just one example, are extremely expensive to develop and test. A company will spend untold millions of dollars and take years, sometimes decades, to bring a new medicine to market. Someone has to pay that cost, and when a country can simply create a generic version of (steal) a drug long before American companies can legally do so, they can dump the costs on the American healthcare consumer. That's just one way other countries can afford to give healthcare to their citizens at a lower cost.

 

[forkup]

Same tired religious bigotry from the same tired religious bigot.

Actually, the point went right over your head.

The thing about the bible stories is you have these "12 losers who can't find a job" hanging with Jesus, (With apologies to Sam Kinneson) and after Jesus performs miracle after miracle, they still doubt. In fact, they are a largely shiftless bunch until AFTER Jesus goes to heaven and they get the Jesus Powers through the Holy Spirit... Peter Denies him, Thomas Doubts him, Judas betrays him. It seems like they are more story creations than real people.

You're forgetting something. You pay that much whether you get sick or not. You pay the same whether you make good health choices or destroy your body through neglect and bad health practices. Under the American system, you can save a lot if you take care of yourself, and you can choose to buy more insurance than you need or less. It's up to you. You, OTOH, don't have that choice.

Look, we got another Medical Calvinist in the House. Hey, remember Jim Fixx? He was the guy who was big into running and healthy living... and he keeled over and died of a heart attack at 52.

Jim Fixx - Wikipedia

Are you content then with your government superiors making choices for you because they know better than you what's good for you? Nice anecdote, BTW. Is that really informative?

I think this was meant for me. Check the names in the reply it got mixed up a bit. My replies were the previous 2. To answer your question. As you acknowledged some people make dumb choices, so yes the government in some cases does know better what's good for you than you yourself do.

To make it less hypothetical. When it comes to health care and health insurance. I don't care if it's private industry or my government who takes responsibility for it. The only thing I care about is what it covers and how much it costs me. It just happens that the government gets a better result since your for-profit system costs about twice as much covers less and leaves millions uninsured. If the price for that is that I pay an equal amount at 20 and at 60 I can only say "who cares".

Should stupidity be illegal? And, if so, who should decide what is stupid and thus should be illegal?

There are reasons why healthcare costs more in this country that have nothing to do with the government not running the whole thing. Pharmaceuticals, for just one example, are extremely expensive to develop and test. A company will spend untold millions of dollars and take years, sometimes decades, to bring a new medicine to market. Someone has to pay that cost, and when a country can simply create a generic version of (steal) a drug long before American companies can legally do so, they can dump the costs on the American healthcare consumer. That's just one way other countries can afford to give healthcare to their citizens at a lower cost.

Let me ask you this. Are you against forcing people to pay taxes to fund the fire department? I'm not simply because I consider a fire department in the public interest. The same goes for health care.

Pharmaceutical prices are more expensive precisely because your government doesn't involve themselves in price setting. We do. And yes the price of research and development does have to be paid. That's why we negotiate prices and don't demand of those companies to give the medicine for free. Generics can only be developed after the patent rights to that particular medicine are expired.

Other reasons are. Lower administrative cost, lower cost to become a doctor so they don't charge as much, the inability of citizens to charge millions for pain and suffering as a result of medical malpractice ( making malpractice insurances lower), and last but not least no for-profit motive in large parts of the system. All of which are directly or indirectly a result of the fact that our government is in charge.

As to stupidity being illegal and who decides. In any country certain acts of stupidity are illegal. It's stupid to drink and drive so it's illegal. It's stupid to smoke, so we penalize people for doing it by paying taxes that helps to cover the cost of it to society. It's stupid to use heroin, so it's illegal, etc.etc. As to who decides, we do. By voting for people who are put in place to think about what certain acts of stupidity are benign or costly to society.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My take on Sanders voters.

 

[hadit]

Same tired religious bigotry from the same tired religious bigot.

Actually, the point went right over your head.

The thing about the bible stories is you have these "12 losers who can't find a job" hanging with Jesus, (With apologies to Sam Kinneson) and after Jesus performs miracle after miracle, they still doubt. In fact, they are a largely shiftless bunch until AFTER Jesus goes to heaven and they get the Jesus Powers through the Holy Spirit... Peter Denies him, Thomas Doubts him, Judas betrays him. It seems like they are more story creations than real people.

You're forgetting something. You pay that much whether you get sick or not. You pay the same whether you make good health choices or destroy your body through neglect and bad health practices. Under the American system, you can save a lot if you take care of yourself, and you can choose to buy more insurance than you need or less. It's up to you. You, OTOH, don't have that choice.

Look, we got another Medical Calvinist in the House. Hey, remember Jim Fixx? He was the guy who was big into running and healthy living... and he keeled over and died of a heart attack at 52.

Jim Fixx - Wikipedia

Are you content then with your government superiors making choices for you because they know better than you what's good for you? Nice anecdote, BTW. Is that really informative?

I think this was meant for me. Check the names in the reply it got mixed up a bit. My replies were the previous 2. To answer your question. As you acknowledged some people make dumb choices, so yes the government in some cases does know better what's good for you than you yourself do.

To make it less hypothetical. When it comes to health care and health insurance. I don't care if it's private industry or my government who takes responsibility for it. The only thing I care about is what it covers and how much it costs me. It just happens that the government gets a better result since your for-profit system costs about twice as much covers less and leaves millions uninsured. If the price for that is that I pay an equal amount at 20 and at 60 I can only say "who cares".

Should stupidity be illegal? And, if so, who should decide what is stupid and thus should be illegal?

There are reasons why healthcare costs more in this country that have nothing to do with the government not running the whole thing. Pharmaceuticals, for just one example, are extremely expensive to develop and test. A company will spend untold millions of dollars and take years, sometimes decades, to bring a new medicine to market. Someone has to pay that cost, and when a country can simply create a generic version of (steal) a drug long before American companies can legally do so, they can dump the costs on the American healthcare consumer. That's just one way other countries can afford to give healthcare to their citizens at a lower cost.

Let me ask you this. Are you against forcing people to pay taxes to fund the fire department? I'm not simply because I consider a fire department in the public interest. The same goes for health care.

Pharmaceutical prices are more expensive precisely because your government doesn't involve themselves in price setting. We do. And yes the price of research and development does have to be paid. That's why we negotiate prices and don't demand of those companies to give the medicine for free. Generics can only be developed after the patent rights to that particular medicine are expired.

Other reasons are. Lower administrative cost, lower cost to become a doctor so they don't charge as much, the inability of citizens to charge millions for pain and suffering as a result of medical malpractice ( making malpractice insurances lower), and last but not least no for-profit motive in large parts of the system. All of which are directly or indirectly a result of the fact that our government is in charge.

As to stupidity being illegal and who decides. In any country certain acts of stupidity are illegal. It's stupid to drink and drive so it's illegal. It's stupid to smoke, so we penalize people for doing it by paying taxes that helps to cover the cost of it to society. It's stupid to use heroin, so it's illegal, etc.etc. As to who decides, we do. By voting for people who are put in place to think about what certain acts of stupidity are benign or costly to society.

First, fire fighting is a local concern, not a federal one. There are many communities in this country that have a proud tradition of volunteer fire departments that depend on fund raisers and community involvement beyond any tax issue. Vermont tried single payer and failed. That doesn't bode well for future attempts.

Second, government price setting generally does not work, leads to lack of innovation and shortages. I remember the attempts to set wages and prices during the Nixon and Carter administrations, and they abjectly failed.

Third, it is expensive to become a doctor precisely because they have to meet a very high standard before they can become one. It takes 8 years of schooling (during which they accrue enormous debt) after high school, followed by an internship during which they are paid low wages. They do not start making significant income until they are at least 30. Now, we can do some things to make it cheaper to become a doctor, but need to carefully assess what we would be giving up to do so. I do agree that enormous malpractice insurance costs contribute greatly to healthcare costs, because a doctor can easily pay more for malpractice insurance than two or even three average people make in an entire year of working. But again, when the government is in charge and effectively denies a patient's ability to recoup losses, is that really better?

 

[forkup]

Actually, the point went right over your head.

The thing about the bible stories is you have these "12 losers who can't find a job" hanging with Jesus, (With apologies to Sam Kinneson) and after Jesus performs miracle after miracle, they still doubt. In fact, they are a largely shiftless bunch until AFTER Jesus goes to heaven and they get the Jesus Powers through the Holy Spirit... Peter Denies him, Thomas Doubts him, Judas betrays him. It seems like they are more story creations than real people.

Look, we got another Medical Calvinist in the House. Hey, remember Jim Fixx? He was the guy who was big into running and healthy living... and he keeled over and died of a heart attack at 52.

Jim Fixx - Wikipedia

Are you content then with your government superiors making choices for you because they know better than you what's good for you? Nice anecdote, BTW. Is that really informative?

I think this was meant for me. Check the names in the reply it got mixed up a bit. My replies were the previous 2. To answer your question. As you acknowledged some people make dumb choices, so yes the government in some cases does know better what's good for you than you yourself do.

To make it less hypothetical. When it comes to health care and health insurance. I don't care if it's private industry or my government who takes responsibility for it. The only thing I care about is what it covers and how much it costs me. It just happens that the government gets a better result since your for-profit system costs about twice as much covers less and leaves millions uninsured. If the price for that is that I pay an equal amount at 20 and at 60 I can only say "who cares".

Should stupidity be illegal? And, if so, who should decide what is stupid and thus should be illegal?

There are reasons why healthcare costs more in this country that have nothing to do with the government not running the whole thing. Pharmaceuticals, for just one example, are extremely expensive to develop and test. A company will spend untold millions of dollars and take years, sometimes decades, to bring a new medicine to market. Someone has to pay that cost, and when a country can simply create a generic version of (steal) a drug long before American companies can legally do so, they can dump the costs on the American healthcare consumer. That's just one way other countries can afford to give healthcare to their citizens at a lower cost.

Let me ask you this. Are you against forcing people to pay taxes to fund the fire department? I'm not simply because I consider a fire department in the public interest. The same goes for health care.

Pharmaceutical prices are more expensive precisely because your government doesn't involve themselves in price setting. We do. And yes the price of research and development does have to be paid. That's why we negotiate prices and don't demand of those companies to give the medicine for free. Generics can only be developed after the patent rights to that particular medicine are expired.

Other reasons are. Lower administrative cost, lower cost to become a doctor so they don't charge as much, the inability of citizens to charge millions for pain and suffering as a result of medical malpractice ( making malpractice insurances lower), and last but not least no for-profit motive in large parts of the system. All of which are directly or indirectly a result of the fact that our government is in charge.

As to stupidity being illegal and who decides. In any country certain acts of stupidity are illegal. It's stupid to drink and drive so it's illegal. It's stupid to smoke, so we penalize people for doing it by paying taxes that helps to cover the cost of it to society. It's stupid to use heroin, so it's illegal, etc.etc. As to who decides, we do. By voting for people who are put in place to think about what certain acts of stupidity are benign or costly to society.

First, fire fighting is a local concern, not a federal one. There are many communities in this country that have a proud tradition of volunteer fire departments that depend on fund raisers and community involvement beyond any tax issue. Vermont tried single payer and failed. That doesn't bode well for future attempts.

Second, government price setting generally does not work, leads to lack of innovation and shortages. I remember the attempts to set wages and prices during the Nixon and Carter administrations, and they abjectly failed.

Third, it is expensive to become a doctor precisely because they have to meet a very high standard before they can become one. It takes 8 years of schooling (during which they accrue enormous debt) after high school, followed by an internship during which they are paid low wages. They do not start making significant income until they are at least 30. Now, we can do some things to make it cheaper to become a doctor, but need to carefully assess what we would be giving up to do so. I do agree that enormous malpractice insurance costs contribute greatly to healthcare costs, because a doctor can easily pay more for malpractice insurance than two or even three average people make in an entire year of working. But again, when the government is in charge and effectively denies a patient's ability to recoup losses, is that really better?

Ok fire fighting is local. It doesn't change what I think was a clear premise. Namely that society routinely asks it's members to participate monetarily for the well being of the group. I could have used a number of things (police, army, garbage disposal) and that I consider health to one of those things.

Secondly, you can not assert that price-setting does not work and at the same time moan that we pay less for our medicine because of price-setting.

Our doctors go to school for the same amount of years. The entrance exam to even become one has around 80 percent failure rate. One of the few directions that even has one here, so it's incredibly hard. And what we give up is higher taxation.

What we gain is a lower cost at the consumer end and a society were even the concept of student debt in any direction you wish to take in college is non-existent.

And no the government doesn't deny the populace the ability to recoup losses. What it denies is the ability to use a mistake by someone as a lottery ticket. You will be paid for your losses, just not an exorbitant amount.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Lazy:
Want something for nothing or very little effort.

Freeloaders:
Want others to pay for their things.

Uneducated:
Don't understand the ramifications of giving the government the kind of power he proposes.

Economically illiterate:
Don't truly understand the value of a dollar or the gratification that comes from earning it and working your way up the ladder.

Lack life skills and ambition:
Need the government to manage their daily lives.

I know this likely comes off as an insult but that's how I see it. No point in trying to polish a turd least it rub off on me.

My take on your take, with some additions (blue):

Lazy:
Want something for nothing or very little effort. CORRECT

Freeloaders:
Want others to pay for their things. CORRECT

Uneducated:
Don't understand the ramifications of giving the government the kind of power he proposes. Be careful when you suggest education. Our college system often indoctrinates as opposed educates, I've worked with the results and the results are often dysfunctional.

Economically illiterate:
Don't truly understand the value of a dollar or the gratification that comes from earning it and working your way up the ladder. CORRECT

Lack life skills and ambition:
Need the government to manage their daily lives. CORRECT


Hollywood & Musicians: Most live in a generic world on & off camera. They're emotional, light on critical thought. Generally speaking musicians are unfit to run shit.

Lazy thinkers: Who don't apply rational thought from A to B, and don't care to. That and/or they fail to support their opinions with honest/due data. In other terms, a lack of intellectual honesty.

Corrupt people: Those with bad intentions, anarchists. And/or those who create & enjoy turmoil, or turmoil is within their comfort zone due to environment.

Unwise, trendy: Such as kids supporting Bernie cuz their parent's are fucked up.

 

[JoeB131]

I deliberately mixed things into that list that are illegal along with things that are not. For example, attempting to set a land speed record has nothing to do with a car being street legal, so that's out on its face

blah, blah, blah.... point was, the government regulates all sorts of things to keep us safe from ourselves or to make other safe.

They should.

The point is, you appear to come down on the side of believing that it IS the government's job to protect us from ourselves, which puts you in the statist camp, and which makes you vulnerable to the INEVITABLE overreach when someone in government decides to exercise their power to make you do something or prevent you from doing something that you enjoy and believe that the exercise of which no one should abridge.

Naw, guy, I apply a little something called "Common Sense" in "Yeah, that sounds reasonable".

It's something Libertarian Children and Statists don't seem to be able to apply.

Now, here is the thing. I admit, there are going to be points where the majority thinks something makes sense, but I don't. Then I just have to live with that.

This is where you guys get it wrong. There are no "rights". There's just what the majority of the rest of us think is reasonable. In some these privileges have expanded, in other cases they contracted.

It's why you can gay marry now, but you can't smoke in the office.

Attitudes have changed.

 

[hadit]

I deliberately mixed things into that list that are illegal along with things that are not. For example, attempting to set a land speed record has nothing to do with a car being street legal, so that's out on its face

blah, blah, blah.... point was, the government regulates all sorts of things to keep us safe from ourselves or to make other safe.

They should.

The point is, you appear to come down on the side of believing that it IS the government's job to protect us from ourselves, which puts you in the statist camp, and which makes you vulnerable to the INEVITABLE overreach when someone in government decides to exercise their power to make you do something or prevent you from doing something that you enjoy and believe that the exercise of which no one should abridge.

Naw, guy, I apply a little something called "Common Sense" in "Yeah, that sounds reasonable".

It's something Libertarian Children and Statists don't seem to be able to apply.

Now, here is the thing. I admit, there are going to be points where the majority thinks something makes sense, but I don't. Then I just have to live with that.

This is where you guys get it wrong. There are no "rights". There's just what the majority of the rest of us think is reasonable. In some these privileges have expanded, in other cases they contracted.

It's why you can gay marry now, but you can't smoke in the office.

Attitudes have changed.

And that's where you depart from the Constitution as it is written. You know, that document that prevents president Trump from deciding what you write about him is unacceptable and should be regulated to keep you safe from yourself.

 

[dcbl]

looks like we will see rationing of toilet paper at stores; it's sort of like a test run for a Bernie Sanders presidency,,,

 

[JoeB131]

And that's where you depart from the Constitution as it is written. You know, that document that prevents president Trump from deciding what you write about him is unacceptable and should be regulated to keep you safe from yourself.

Again, the constitution is just a piece of paper. Our media is controlled by six big corporations. We don't have freedom of speech or the press. Just look at all the fools who get fired because their bosses didn't like what they wrote on Facebook.

 

[hadit]

And that's where you depart from the Constitution as it is written. You know, that document that prevents president Trump from deciding what you write about him is unacceptable and should be regulated to keep you safe from yourself.

Again, the constitution is just a piece of paper. Our media is controlled by six big corporations. We don't have freedom of speech or the press. Just look at all the fools who get fired because their bosses didn't like what they wrote on Facebook.

First off, those are private companies that can fire anyone for any reason. Those fired can still take to social media to air their opinions, write a blog, or write for a competitor. IOW, their freedom of speech hasn't been violated by law.

What's interesting here is that you're complaining about a very minor version of what would happen if the Constitution truly was not respected at all and mob rule took over (your preferred result) such that "society" in the form of the government was able to dictate what you can and cannot do or say. All for your own good and the good of society, of course.

 

[JoeB131]

First off, those are private companies that can fire anyone for any reason. Those fired can still take to social media to air their opinions, write a blog, or write for a competitor. IOW, their freedom of speech hasn't been violated by law.

Ever heard of NDA's? Libel Suits. Frankly, the reason why big corporations get away with the SHIT they get away with is because they've managed to squelch dissent.

What's interesting here is that you're complaining about a very minor version of what would happen if the Constitution truly was not respected at all and mob rule took over (your preferred result) such that "society" in the form of the government was able to dictate what you can and cannot do or say. All for your own good and the good of society, of course.

Not at all. Again, I apply common sense to what the government should and should not regulate. It's pretty simple.

 

[hadit]

First off, those are private companies that can fire anyone for any reason. Those fired can still take to social media to air their opinions, write a blog, or write for a competitor. IOW, their freedom of speech hasn't been violated by law.

Ever heard of NDA's? Libel Suits. Frankly, the reason why big corporations get away with the SHIT they get away with is because they've managed to squelch dissent.

What's interesting here is that you're complaining about a very minor version of what would happen if the Constitution truly was not respected at all and mob rule took over (your preferred result) such that "society" in the form of the government was able to dictate what you can and cannot do or say. All for your own good and the good of society, of course.

Not at all. Again, I apply common sense to what the government should and should not regulate. It's pretty simple.

1. The first Amendment applies to the government only. Private companies are under no obligation to allow dissent, and that means FB and Twitter can legally be jerks if they want to.

2. You think your opinion is "common sense". Society doesn't have to agree, and likely won't always. So your "It's pretty simple" vanishes. What happens to your stance if enough voters in certain states decide it's common sense that they don't want to hear from anyone bash the Finding Fathers any more and you're not allowed to say certain things when you cross the border? Without the Constitution, you have no protection.

IOW, you rely on that piece of paper you routinely bash.

 

[JoeB131]

IOW, you rely on that piece of paper you routinely bash.

No, I don't. I live in a state where despite that piece of paper, 13 guys got sent to death row for crimes they didn't commit.

 

[Blues Man]

Underachievers afraid to compete.

Just like Bernie

 

[Blues Man]

First off, those are private companies that can fire anyone for any reason. Those fired can still take to social media to air their opinions, write a blog, or write for a competitor. IOW, their freedom of speech hasn't been violated by law.

Ever heard of NDA's? Libel Suits. Frankly, the reason why big corporations get away with the SHIT they get away with is because they've managed to squelch dissent.

What's interesting here is that you're complaining about a very minor version of what would happen if the Constitution truly was not respected at all and mob rule took over (your preferred result) such that "society" in the form of the government was able to dictate what you can and cannot do or say. All for your own good and the good of society, of course.

Not at all. Again, I apply common sense to what the government should and should not regulate. It's pretty simple.

you have given no evidence that you posses common sense at all

 

[JoeB131]

you have given no evidence that you posses common sense at all

Sure I do. Crazy people shouldn't be able to buy guns. Common sense.

Unless you are a gun nut who thinks because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't write a militia amendment clearly, he totally should have a military grade rifle to fights him the government.

That's a lack of fucking common sense.

 

[Blues Man]

you have given no evidence that you posses common sense at all

Sure I do. Crazy people shouldn't be able to buy guns. Common sense.

Unless you are a gun nut who thinks because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't write a militia amendment clearly, he totally should have a military grade rifle to fights him the government.

That's a lack of fucking common sense.

And we already have a law that states that.

Wanting more laws that do the same thing is not common sense