I only read part of your post but i think something needs pointed out.
The constitution has built with inself several processes to amend it. The founders, while they likely did not foresee things like lobyist, they did foresee the fact that they could not foresee eveeything. The follow the constitution crowd is generally fine with amendments as it follows the constitution. The problem we have is when it gets ignored because it doesn't fit someone's ideology with excuses like its old or they never could foresee this.
Of course it isn't exactly easy to amend the constitution if you don't have a plurality of the country supporting the change. And of course this was by design so the country wasn't subject to the latest fad at the whims of a few like was the case under a king.
I see racism but it is from idiots that have no poweror control over anyone. Hell, most of them even voted for Obama because he was the democrat. I've even told racist jokes- because they were funny. But language alone is not a good judge of racism. You need actions or intended actions too.
I see you pointed to two people in the news recently. One who was lead on by a reporter and said some clever and some seriously stupid racist things. The other was lead on by an ex girlfriend who happens to be a minority too. In both cases though, where is the problem? I mean the bundy ordeal came as a complete shocker to many that knew him so obviously he didn't act out kb the racism. The sterling had also said many non-racist and even flatering things about the same people his rant was about. He was even being given an awarf by the local NAACP chapter. So again, where is the problem or hangup?
You are probably the closest with the democrats using all this to fire up their base though. Manufacturing fake racism problems for gain is a problem and it is created by the idiot trying to take advantage of it.
But lets look at some data points. In an area with a rash of recent burglaries, someone who isn't known in that area is likely connected to them. So was zimmerman justified in following a suspicious teen who was new to the area? Is getting pulled over for driving while black legitimate ir NYC's stop and frisk program? I don't expect you to answer that but i will. Zimmerman-following yes. The rest- no. The entire idea od data can create real racism that is founded in actions. That may be a hangup.
Your post and point might have some validity if you actually demonstrated where the wholes are. As fpr my opening, sure- the politicians and envirpmentalist largely do not care if evil oil turns a profit. They want to limit and control you and this is by admission. Back when gas was $5 a gallon, the Siera club and a few democrats suggested taxing it that much and give credirs to the poor for approved uses. Its the same realitt with the coveted carbon tax. They want to make certain energy too expensive to use and give credits for approved uses. That is fact- not ridicule. Get over it.
I can see you are retreating to attemps at ridicul instead of addtessing the points made. Its clear that you are lost in this.
The lack of a pipeline only means increased costs. If it appears a pipeline is completely out of the question then the answer is more trucks, more rail cars, more tanker ships, and a refinery. And yes, i would mine 5 years surplus waiting for all that to come on line because it can be sold in reserve without flooding the market and dropping the price of it. Please do not act like we do not have the capacity or capabilities of building more.
I also left the part about energy cost out because i never said it would decrease energy costs. Lets be real and pretend we said things that were actually said.
As for the town burning down. You are a complete idiot if you do not see how transporting oil away from other humans is safer to society snd those that inhabit it than what we have now which has already proven to be quite devistating when things go wrong.
But thanks for not even trying. Its as if your script didn't cover reality and you got flustered or something. But i can tell you are wasting everyone's time so i will bid you farewell. Come back when you can think for yourself.
Yes, i am saying there is some racial bias in the us but it is not systemic or a major problem in any way close to what has been claimed with the sorry examples so far produced.
Mining the tar sands is happening without the pipeline. Thr only aregument you put forth that isn't already a reality is eminent domain. As for leaks, did you miss all the tanker fires or the town that burnt down from an accident while moving this oil already? That almost makes your pipeline fears a godsend if it makes large populattion areas safer.
I don't disagree, i was just making the point that reprehensable and unethical does not neccesarily translate to illegal. If you think that kind of behavior needs to stop, the tax code needs changed. We don't need to punish the companies, just remove the incentives for doing it. That can be with removing tax breaks or lowering taxes or a combination of those as well as other things.
And yes, lowering taxes is a viable option when it means collecting taxes hidden in offshore investments or which is alreaady being paid to foreign governments.
I keep hearing about all this republican information getting debunked but I can't seem to find where. Sure, there were a few people claiming the sky was falling for them who lied for attention but I have never seen anything that has disproved or debunked what the GP is stating.
I myself am in a similar situation to the GP. I had a catastrophic plan with a HSA maxed out. I rarely spent more than $1000 a year in medical expenses and the catastrophic plan only had a $2000 deductible. Now the cheapest plan I can find that meets the ACA criteria costs me 200% more a week/month and has a deductible higher then I have spent on medical costs in the last 6 years combined ($4500).
I would love to see you debunk that as it would mean I would save money or be at the same expense as before. So go ahead and do it. While you are at it, post a link to all this debunking.
Profitable is the correct term. If a risk pool pays too much out, it doesn't make a profit- it is unprofitable. If it breaks even, there is no profit and little motivation to participate. If it is skewed towards the young and healthy, it will be profitable. Companies do not typically stay in business when they are not making a profit or losing money. It's likely the number one reason why they discontinue products or close down.
So if anything, viable equals profitable. It seems to be one in the same, one sounds a little softer then the other but either could be used.
The problem of putting companies or people in jail is that often the tax dodging is more or less legal. Do you know what the real definition of a loop hole is, someone you didn't intend using a provision law in a way you didn't intend it to be used. But what you intended isn't the law so a lot if not all of the tax dodging is within the law- hence the problem with jailing someone.
Now sometimes you can get judges to read into something and cause the loophole to be closed by judicial decree (more or less), but that is often seen as an after the fact law and typically wouldn't be criminally prosecuted (no jail time)- even if back taxes and penalties could be taken.
I tell people all the time they are idiots for using face book and twitter. Especially when they tweet they are getting coffee or some stupid shit like that. Let's go on face book and brag about the big settlement of my dad's lawsuit just to get it revoked with no recourse. A bagillion likes I guess. But I doubt any push of reality was anywhere close to equal to the advertising for the services.
It doesn't really matter if the sign ups are people who otherwise lost insurance from some other means- even if it is due to obamacare. The number of people signed up or enrolled in the exchanges were never about the number of people uninsured who are now insured.
The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating). If the participation pool wasn't large enough to absorb the costs of the sick we knew would use it, then the policies offered are unsustainable. So even if the pool ends up being 2 people who didn't have insurance plus 7 million who lost their coverage, it would still be a success as it would be self sustainable.
The government could pass a law saying that everyone making under $100k a year had to use the exchanges and the number would still not matter as long as the pool of insured is large enough. That is why the number of enrolled verses the number who purchased insurance is so important. It's like slashdot that has user id numbers in the millions but less the 20,000 comments by probably 10,000 people a day (I pulled that off my ass considering that most stories get less than 500 comments and believe it to be high). So a lot of people created accounts but don't actually participate often outside of viewing maybe. Or maybe a twitter analogy might be better, 10,000 followers means exactly what when they don't run out and purchase whatever you are promoting or vote the way you would like them to. There was something about paid followers a while back where companies employed drones and clone accounts in order to up their numbers. And yet they don't purchase or vote (that we know of). So right now, all we know is that people made accounts. We don't know how many purchased a product that would make the exchanges sustainable. Well, someone might know, but they will not tell us who ultimately flips the bill with taxation.
More likely than not, it is because no matter how nasty and illegal you want to think hiding those assets off shore in havens might be, there is a possibility that it is done legally even if not ethically.
Look at it this way, several years ago, I purchased a rehab home. I moved into it, rented the old home out which made it my primary residence. I then used a grant through the utility company paid for by the state in order to remove the old plaster and lath, install modern insulation, seal the walls and drywall them. I had to pay for the ceilings but the rest came from the state through the utility company. But I also replaced the single pain windows with a tax program the state had so the difference in the trim actually allowed the purchase of the drywall on the ceilings. So essentially, I gutted and insulated the entire home, upgraded the windows for free if you accept spending money I would have already paid in taxes as not being a new expense.
I then replaced the aging roof shingles (slate) with Owens Corning 25 year shingles under another program for energy efficiency by the feds granted to the state. Because I went from slate to asphalt shingles, I had to install a venting system and all which ended costing me about $3000 but everything else was covered by the program. But there is more, I bought new appliances too with another energy grant through the utility company which was through the state so I ended up only paying 40% of the cost of those.
Basically, by the time it was all said and done, I spend about 5 years of my taxes on an investment home instead of paying the state and federal governments and got a bunch of free (think refunds) money on top of what I would have paid in. It was all legal as long as I lived in the house another 5 years. I sold it off at the height of the real estate bubble and made a killing. This was a tax shelter much the same way as those off shore havens work. It's all legal even though you think they shouldn't be.
The tax code is so complex that even IRS officials cannot follow it enough to stay out of trouble with their own taxes. What is obvious isn't always illegal and what is illegal may only be illegal in certain situations. And what is obviously illegal can be perfectly legal if your accountant structures something specifically with the intent of making it legal. Then again, people have been wrong before and get busted for thinking their illegal thing was legal but it turned out to be illegal. If that confused you a bit, it was supposed to just like the tax code.
The thing about it is, and lets simplify this as you being the one in court, if the court orders you to turn something over, you cannot say it's in another country and be done with it. You can say you sold it, disposed of it, or otherwise no longer have access or control over it, but if you still maintain control over it, you will be held accountable for either turning it over or failing to.
Now this might work differently if you are a third party from another country and I'm in court because I know you. This essentially would be the case if you paid me to do your email on servers inside your country. I would still be held accountable for failing to turn it over and might be able to make the case that I don't have legal access to it depending on you and the other country's laws. But I cannot hide something in another country and expect not to be subject to any court's orders on it when I remain in their jurisdiction- which seems to be the case here.
It's been that way a lot longer than 20 years. The difference now is that instead of buying large yachts and other luxury items as business expenses that can be depreciated then resold as a capital gain later, other countries have lowered their tax rates so moving the funds around makes more sense.
But if you really want to blame a president, you can blame Clinton because all of this off shoring wasn't prevalent until he became president and enacted policies that globalized companies in the way we see them today. You can say it was in the works before he was president, but he enacted NAFTA and several other free trade agreements that made this possible and likely.
People like red hair, some like blue eyes, some like tall partners and some like skinny partners. There are simply too many factors outside of race including access to meeting people for it to be about race or any hangups on race.
I would even say cultural differences play a role that limit this and that is ancillary to race. There are absolutely no indications of any racial problems by people making free choices that may not even come close to race being part off.
Lol . So someone who is married to the same race is a bigot?
Thats hillarious. But just in case you didn't mean all non interracial marriages were bigoted, why are some and not others. You will find why its funny.
There simply are not enough minorities for everything to aleays reflect the racial makup of the country. This is especially true when you consider groups like families. It will spumd strange but theresre not enough black people for every neighborhood in the us to be 15 or 20 percent or whatever yhe current census counts put the black population at. This is because of families without even bothering with reasons why a person might want to live somewhere specific. I mean several years ago, i turned down a good job in another state because my grandmother needed a lot of help before she passed. My sister needs to stay in the same town as my mom because of her kids.
There are all sorts of innocent reasons that have nothing to do with race
Wrong. Statistical analysis can point to racism but doesn't always and doesn't have to. Equal oppertunity does not mean equal outcome. There are many more mariages for instance that are not mixed race than there are that are mixed race. This doesn't mean a majority of married people are racist.
I'm not sure routers are sold as firewalls. We call them that out of utilitt and some routers have firewalls built into them. But i think it is us not them.
Not only do you need it to grow, you need the company (innvestment) to be honest and forthcoming about the risks. This report like many other was more than likely exploring risks and informing share holders.
In other words, it seems as if the utility being ethical in its fudiciary duties is being used to attemp to make them appear evil.
You might as well just give it up. All you arr doing id regurgitsting the same yhing differrnt ways. You think it is fine that i am compelled to lose my money and freedom for the financial security of some third party because you might use that third party and it might cost you slightly more if i didn't.
I believe that is a crock of crap and that just like anything else in a free country, you arent penalized and lose your freedom until you actuslly do something wrong. I doubt i will ever agree your concept is good.
No, it is anti gun just as i said it. There are people who think the second amendment to thr constituton is out of touch and knowing they cannot muster enough suppot to amend the constitution, they are activly subverting it. This is one of those attemps and ypu can see other posts in this thread that illistrate that.
You see, unlike magnets, guns cannot easily be banned because of that very old document- as long as people ate not afraid of guns. As soon as they are, they tend to side with getting rid of those scary things. So even though guns are made for kids and the government cannot ban them, they can place age restrictions on purchasing them.
Give up. This is not about science, it is about tje progressive anti-gun stance. Any resemblence to science is ancillary to the point. Any previous simularities that might resemble precedence is irrelevant. It simply doesn't follow the modern libersl fear of guns in a world of zero tolorance where pointing a finger in the right way or eating a pop tart the wrong way will get a kid suspended. We simply cannot have young people growing up not afraid of guns so they will support gun control ehen they can vote.
Slashdot Mirror
I only read part of your post but i think something needs pointed out.
The constitution has built with inself several processes to amend it. The founders, while they likely did not foresee things like lobyist, they did foresee the fact that they could not foresee eveeything. The follow the constitution crowd is generally fine with amendments as it follows the constitution. The problem we have is when it gets ignored because it doesn't fit someone's ideology with excuses like its old or they never could foresee this.
Of course it isn't exactly easy to amend the constitution if you don't have a plurality of the country supporting the change. And of course this was by design so the country wasn't subject to the latest fad at the whims of a few like was the case under a king.
I see racism but it is from idiots that have no poweror control over anyone. Hell, most of them even voted for Obama because he was the democrat. I've even told racist jokes- because they were funny. But language alone is not a good judge of racism. You need actions or intended actions too.
I see you pointed to two people in the news recently. One who was lead on by a reporter and said some clever and some seriously stupid racist things. The other was lead on by an ex girlfriend who happens to be a minority too. In both cases though, where is the problem? I mean the bundy ordeal came as a complete shocker to many that knew him so obviously he didn't act out kb the racism. The sterling had also said many non-racist and even flatering things about the same people his rant was about. He was even being given an awarf by the local NAACP chapter. So again, where is the problem or hangup?
You are probably the closest with the democrats using all this to fire up their base though. Manufacturing fake racism problems for gain is a problem and it is created by the idiot trying to take advantage of it.
But lets look at some data points. In an area with a rash of recent burglaries, someone who isn't known in that area is likely connected to them. So was zimmerman justified in following a suspicious teen who was new to the area? Is getting pulled over for driving while black legitimate ir NYC's stop and frisk program? I don't expect you to answer that but i will. Zimmerman-following yes. The rest- no. The entire idea od data can create real racism that is founded in actions. That may be a hangup.
Your post and point might have some validity if you actually demonstrated where the wholes are. As fpr my opening, sure- the politicians and envirpmentalist largely do not care if evil oil turns a profit. They want to limit and control you and this is by admission. Back when gas was $5 a gallon, the Siera club and a few democrats suggested taxing it that much and give credirs to the poor for approved uses. Its the same realitt with the coveted carbon tax. They want to make certain energy too expensive to use and give credits for approved uses. That is fact- not ridicule. Get over it.
I can see you are retreating to attemps at ridicul instead of addtessing the points made. Its clear that you are lost in this.
The lack of a pipeline only means increased costs. If it appears a pipeline is completely out of the question then the answer is more trucks, more rail cars, more tanker ships, and a refinery. And yes, i would mine 5 years surplus waiting for all that to come on line because it can be sold in reserve without flooding the market and dropping the price of it. Please do not act like we do not have the capacity or capabilities of building more.
I also left the part about energy cost out because i never said it would decrease energy costs. Lets be real and pretend we said things that were actually said.
As for the town burning down. You are a complete idiot if you do not see how transporting oil away from other humans is safer to society snd those that inhabit it than what we have now which has already proven to be quite devistating when things go wrong.
But thanks for not even trying. Its as if your script didn't cover reality and you got flustered or something. But i can tell you are wasting everyone's time so i will bid you farewell. Come back when you can think for yourself.
Yes, i am saying there is some racial bias in the us but it is not systemic or a major problem in any way close to what has been claimed with the sorry examples so far produced.
Mining the tar sands is happening without the pipeline. Thr only aregument you put forth that isn't already a reality is eminent domain. As for leaks, did you miss all the tanker fires or the town that burnt down from an accident while moving this oil already? That almost makes your pipeline fears a godsend if it makes large populattion areas safer.
Going from 2 to 8 percent can easily be explained by cultural shifts with areas like religion, education, or any number of things.
I think your supposed data points are suffering selection bias. Perhaps the major issue with race is more with you than the country.
I don't disagree, i was just making the point that reprehensable and unethical does not neccesarily translate to illegal. If you think that kind of behavior needs to stop, the tax code needs changed. We don't need to punish the companies, just remove the incentives for doing it. That can be with removing tax breaks or lowering taxes or a combination of those as well as other things.
And yes, lowering taxes is a viable option when it means collecting taxes hidden in offshore investments or which is alreaady being paid to foreign governments.
I keep hearing about all this republican information getting debunked but I can't seem to find where. Sure, there were a few people claiming the sky was falling for them who lied for attention but I have never seen anything that has disproved or debunked what the GP is stating.
I myself am in a similar situation to the GP. I had a catastrophic plan with a HSA maxed out. I rarely spent more than $1000 a year in medical expenses and the catastrophic plan only had a $2000 deductible. Now the cheapest plan I can find that meets the ACA criteria costs me 200% more a week/month and has a deductible higher then I have spent on medical costs in the last 6 years combined ($4500).
I would love to see you debunk that as it would mean I would save money or be at the same expense as before. So go ahead and do it. While you are at it, post a link to all this debunking.
Profitable is the correct term. If a risk pool pays too much out, it doesn't make a profit- it is unprofitable. If it breaks even, there is no profit and little motivation to participate. If it is skewed towards the young and healthy, it will be profitable. Companies do not typically stay in business when they are not making a profit or losing money. It's likely the number one reason why they discontinue products or close down.
So if anything, viable equals profitable. It seems to be one in the same, one sounds a little softer then the other but either could be used.
The problem of putting companies or people in jail is that often the tax dodging is more or less legal. Do you know what the real definition of a loop hole is, someone you didn't intend using a provision law in a way you didn't intend it to be used. But what you intended isn't the law so a lot if not all of the tax dodging is within the law- hence the problem with jailing someone.
Now sometimes you can get judges to read into something and cause the loophole to be closed by judicial decree (more or less), but that is often seen as an after the fact law and typically wouldn't be criminally prosecuted (no jail time)- even if back taxes and penalties could be taken.
I tell people all the time they are idiots for using face book and twitter. Especially when they tweet they are getting coffee or some stupid shit like that. Let's go on face book and brag about the big settlement of my dad's lawsuit just to get it revoked with no recourse. A bagillion likes I guess. But I doubt any push of reality was anywhere close to equal to the advertising for the services.
It doesn't really matter if the sign ups are people who otherwise lost insurance from some other means- even if it is due to obamacare. The number of people signed up or enrolled in the exchanges were never about the number of people uninsured who are now insured.
The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating). If the participation pool wasn't large enough to absorb the costs of the sick we knew would use it, then the policies offered are unsustainable. So even if the pool ends up being 2 people who didn't have insurance plus 7 million who lost their coverage, it would still be a success as it would be self sustainable.
The government could pass a law saying that everyone making under $100k a year had to use the exchanges and the number would still not matter as long as the pool of insured is large enough. That is why the number of enrolled verses the number who purchased insurance is so important. It's like slashdot that has user id numbers in the millions but less the 20,000 comments by probably 10,000 people a day (I pulled that off my ass considering that most stories get less than 500 comments and believe it to be high). So a lot of people created accounts but don't actually participate often outside of viewing maybe. Or maybe a twitter analogy might be better, 10,000 followers means exactly what when they don't run out and purchase whatever you are promoting or vote the way you would like them to. There was something about paid followers a while back where companies employed drones and clone accounts in order to up their numbers. And yet they don't purchase or vote (that we know of). So right now, all we know is that people made accounts. We don't know how many purchased a product that would make the exchanges sustainable. Well, someone might know, but they will not tell us who ultimately flips the bill with taxation.
More likely than not, it is because no matter how nasty and illegal you want to think hiding those assets off shore in havens might be, there is a possibility that it is done legally even if not ethically.
Look at it this way, several years ago, I purchased a rehab home. I moved into it, rented the old home out which made it my primary residence. I then used a grant through the utility company paid for by the state in order to remove the old plaster and lath, install modern insulation, seal the walls and drywall them. I had to pay for the ceilings but the rest came from the state through the utility company. But I also replaced the single pain windows with a tax program the state had so the difference in the trim actually allowed the purchase of the drywall on the ceilings. So essentially, I gutted and insulated the entire home, upgraded the windows for free if you accept spending money I would have already paid in taxes as not being a new expense.
I then replaced the aging roof shingles (slate) with Owens Corning 25 year shingles under another program for energy efficiency by the feds granted to the state. Because I went from slate to asphalt shingles, I had to install a venting system and all which ended costing me about $3000 but everything else was covered by the program. But there is more, I bought new appliances too with another energy grant through the utility company which was through the state so I ended up only paying 40% of the cost of those.
Basically, by the time it was all said and done, I spend about 5 years of my taxes on an investment home instead of paying the state and federal governments and got a bunch of free (think refunds) money on top of what I would have paid in. It was all legal as long as I lived in the house another 5 years. I sold it off at the height of the real estate bubble and made a killing. This was a tax shelter much the same way as those off shore havens work. It's all legal even though you think they shouldn't be.
The tax code is so complex that even IRS officials cannot follow it enough to stay out of trouble with their own taxes. What is obvious isn't always illegal and what is illegal may only be illegal in certain situations. And what is obviously illegal can be perfectly legal if your accountant structures something specifically with the intent of making it legal. Then again, people have been wrong before and get busted for thinking their illegal thing was legal but it turned out to be illegal. If that confused you a bit, it was supposed to just like the tax code.
The thing about it is, and lets simplify this as you being the one in court, if the court orders you to turn something over, you cannot say it's in another country and be done with it. You can say you sold it, disposed of it, or otherwise no longer have access or control over it, but if you still maintain control over it, you will be held accountable for either turning it over or failing to.
Now this might work differently if you are a third party from another country and I'm in court because I know you. This essentially would be the case if you paid me to do your email on servers inside your country. I would still be held accountable for failing to turn it over and might be able to make the case that I don't have legal access to it depending on you and the other country's laws. But I cannot hide something in another country and expect not to be subject to any court's orders on it when I remain in their jurisdiction- which seems to be the case here.
It's been that way a lot longer than 20 years. The difference now is that instead of buying large yachts and other luxury items as business expenses that can be depreciated then resold as a capital gain later, other countries have lowered their tax rates so moving the funds around makes more sense.
But if you really want to blame a president, you can blame Clinton because all of this off shoring wasn't prevalent until he became president and enacted policies that globalized companies in the way we see them today. You can say it was in the works before he was president, but he enacted NAFTA and several other free trade agreements that made this possible and likely.
People like red hair, some like blue eyes, some like tall partners and some like skinny partners. There are simply too many factors outside of race including access to meeting people for it to be about race or any hangups on race.
I would even say cultural differences play a role that limit this and that is ancillary to race. There are absolutely no indications of any racial problems by people making free choices that may not even come close to race being part off.
Lol . So someone who is married to the same race is a bigot?
Thats hillarious. But just in case you didn't mean all non interracial marriages were bigoted, why are some and not others. You will find why its funny.
No... how do you figure?
There simply are not enough minorities for everything to aleays reflect the racial makup of the country. This is especially true when you consider groups like families. It will spumd strange but theresre not enough black people for every neighborhood in the us to be 15 or 20 percent or whatever yhe current census counts put the black population at. This is because of families without even bothering with reasons why a person might want to live somewhere specific. I mean several years ago, i turned down a good job in another state because my grandmother needed a lot of help before she passed. My sister needs to stay in the same town as my mom because of her kids.
There are all sorts of innocent reasons that have nothing to do with race
Wrong. Statistical analysis can point to racism but doesn't always and doesn't have to. Equal oppertunity does not mean equal outcome. There are many more mariages for instance that are not mixed race than there are that are mixed race. This doesn't mean a majority of married people are racist.
I'm not sure routers are sold as firewalls. We call them that out of utilitt and some routers have firewalls built into them. But i think it is us not them.
Not only do you need it to grow, you need the company (innvestment) to be honest and forthcoming about the risks. This report like many other was more than likely exploring risks and informing share holders.
In other words, it seems as if the utility being ethical in its fudiciary duties is being used to attemp to make them appear evil.
You might as well just give it up. All you arr doing id regurgitsting the same yhing differrnt ways. You think it is fine that i am compelled to lose my money and freedom for the financial security of some third party because you might use that third party and it might cost you slightly more if i didn't.
I believe that is a crock of crap and that just like anything else in a free country, you arent penalized and lose your freedom until you actuslly do something wrong. I doubt i will ever agree your concept is good.
No, it is anti gun just as i said it. There are people who think the second amendment to thr constituton is out of touch and knowing they cannot muster enough suppot to amend the constitution, they are activly subverting it. This is one of those attemps and ypu can see other posts in this thread that illistrate that.
You see, unlike magnets, guns cannot easily be banned because of that very old document- as long as people ate not afraid of guns. As soon as they are, they tend to side with getting rid of those scary things. So even though guns are made for kids and the government cannot ban them, they can place age restrictions on purchasing them.
This is about guns- not science.
Give up. This is not about science, it is about tje progressive anti-gun stance. Any resemblence to science is ancillary to the point. Any previous simularities that might resemble precedence is irrelevant. It simply doesn't follow the modern libersl fear of guns in a world of zero tolorance where pointing a finger in the right way or eating a pop tart the wrong way will get a kid suspended. We simply cannot have young people growing up not afraid of guns so they will support gun control ehen they can vote.