While I agree with this more than I do not----Its very sad to me to see uninformed people thinking there is so much charity and ways for people to better themselves out there without any govt assistance. As someone who works very closely with many non-profits, charities, ect. this could not further from the truth. Also, it glosses over, or simply neglects, the elderly, handicapped, mentally challenged, those with mental health issues...and that just names a few---who are unable for any number of reasons to help themselves with the "pick up by the bootstraps" approach. But I suppose it is easier to claim laziness and use blanket statements for all people who are poor or suffering than to give a few pennies of our taxes.
... this is actually whar Puro is saying. the charity of the people of the US has gone down because they now figure that the government will just take care of them.
correct me if im wrong, puro, but you are saying that the entitlement programs of the US have destroyed the charity business?
You are correct Kuzi, the social welfare programs have killed people sense of charity. Like the story from Grover Cleveland showed, at the time people would step up and help their brothers. They donated 10 times the amount of money that Congress wanted to give them. This wouldn't happen today... Today you have FEMA that steps in and millions of dollars in fraudulent claims are made and our tax dollars end up going strip clubs and liquor stores. FEMA handed out $6.3 billion and almost a quarter of that was spend fraudulently. Hell FEMA even admited to losing 381 debit cards worth approx $762,000...
That being said, my next big question is, since we have been taught that "the government will take care of it," is it even possible for us to reverse this way of thinking nationwide?
i think there are other causes to the increasing lack of charity in the US.... such as being able to deduct less off your taxes, a more tangled web or regulation on nonprofit groups and how they can gather money and what they can to with it, and as mentioned above, the attitude that the government is there to ensure that you are happy. this has never been the job of the government. in fact, this is one of the reasons why libertarianism speaks to me so much.
The reason charitable giving has dropped (only recently) is because of the financial downturn, pure and simple. Philanthropy in the U.S. reached reached an all-time high in 2007 and then declined by 2 percent.
The reason charitable giving has dropped (only recently) is because of the financial downturn, pure and simple. Philanthropy in the U.S. reached reached an all-time high in 2007 and then declined by 2 percent.
if we didnt have the entitlement programs, the decrease of tax wright offs, and a very cumbersome regulation system for non-profits, there may have been/be even more charity. i mean, the above listed dont exactly PROMOTE charity.
of course we will never know. its all speculation. but its an interesting thing to think about.
I've heard some grumblings lately from the far left in this country about an "Assault Weapons" ban again and I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't understand these people. What good would this honestly do? Do you think "assault weapons" are really what most gangsters and drug dealers even use out there? Because if you do you are sadly mistaken... "Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes." So what is the reasoning behind this? They should really just call it what it is, the "Scary Looking Gun Ban." Or as I would call them, the "cool looking gun ban!" I've been in the law enforcement biz for a few years and I've never once encountered or even heard of any of my co-workers encountering a suspect with an actual "assault rifle."
I've heard some grumblings lately from the far left in this country about an "Assault Weapons" ban again and I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't understand these people. What good would this honestly do? Do you think "assault weapons" are really what most gangsters and drug dealers even use out there? Because if you do you are sadly mistaken... "Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes." So what is the reasoning behind this? They should really just call it what it is, the "Scary Looking Gun Ban." Or as I would call them, the "cool looking gun ban!" I've been in the law enforcement biz for a few years and I've never once encountered or even heard of any of my co-workers encountering a suspect with an actual "assault rifle."
I swing to the left on a lot issues. This aint one of them! That's a really good point about assault weapons. I think maybe their prissy little arses just get a little mixed up by the name "assault." And someone is going around our nations capital, especially on the bridge that connects Roslyn to Georgetown, and stinseling in spraypaint the word "disarm!" I'm not disarming sh*t. You know what kinda crazy @ssclowns we have running around here. And it takes 20 minutes for the police to respond to anything.
I would say cops and guns together scare me...but I would get chopped off at the head again like when I said bad cops hurt more citizens of this country than terrorists----so I will remain quiet.
I would say cops and guns together scare me...but I would get chopped off at the head again like when I said bad cops hurt more citizens of this country than terrorists----so I will remain quiet.
So you would rather we have an unarmed police force? REALLY?
As I have said, and continue to say... BAD cops, not all cops... BAD cops.
Your comment said "cops and guns together scare me." That is a very broad statement. You said nothing about bad cops, good cops... That is not the issue here though. I'm trying to figure out what makes so called "assault weapons" such evil things? Most assault weapons are less powerful than weapons that are not on the list... In the assault weapons ban during the Clinton era New York's Carolyn McCarthy was one of the key people fighting against assault weapons, one of the options she said should not be allowed on weapons was a barrel shroud.... If you are asking yourself what sense that makes, you are NOT alone. She was asked why barrel shrouds should be banned and she wasn't sure why. When she was asked what a barrel shroud was her response was "it's one of those shoulder things right?" For those of you who don't know, a barrel shroud is a cover that goes over the barrel of a gun with holes or slots in it that allow it to stay cool while the barrel inside gets hot. It is a safety device so you don't burn your hand... And this is one of the things the far left has targeted?
any restriction on any firearm (including assault weapons) will just lead to more restrictions on our most basic freedom: to provide for and protect your family. some say that fully automatic weapons are easy to get just because they see an assault weapon in a sporting goods store. They done realize that the ONLY way to own a fully automatic weapon in the united states it to have a class 3 license. The government can then raid your house at ANY time to check on what you have in your house. you also have to keep them notified on everything that you do (moving, vacations, etc). the fact is, most people buy black rifles for hunting purposes. The ar15, for example, has become the go to firearm for predator hunting due to cheap ammo, good accuracy, good fire rate, and infinite possibilities to customize your rife. am i mistaken in believing that there is also a ban suggested on magazine fed weapons? that would mean i would have to fork over my deer hunting rifle just because you can press a button and carry around a little case with 3 300WSM shells in it. there goes almost all pistols too. we as citizens can not let the government encroach on the right to bear arms. even if you are not a gun owner, would you not atleast want the choice to own one? it is not the legal, law-abiding gun owners that cause crimes; they prevent them. you should not verbally (typographically?) attack police officers. They put their lives on the line for you and your family. Think how chaotic it would be if there was absolutely no law enforcement. the streets would run wild with all of the riffraff emboldened by the lack of punishment. we must rally together and fight for this right.
I will not engage in the argument about bearing arms. While I agree it is a right and should be protected, we as a people cannot "overthrow" the govt. by taking up arms as many forefathers thought was the reason to have guns. Hence, we are left with hunting and protection. Protection deals with killing, which is what guns are for. I dont know what if right or wrong here, and think it is a debate which is talked of too often, instead of too little.
As far as verbally attacking police officers, I will not quiet my right to free speech when speaking out against cops which abuse their power, misuse their weapons, or take advantage of their position. That has nothing to do with putting anything on the line, that has to do with being a poor officer and and lousy person. While 99% of cops or more may not fit into this category...I will not stop calling out the 1% (or whatever you may think the amout is) that do.
I will not engage in the argument about bearing arms. While I agree it is a right and should be protected, we as a people cannot "overthrow" the govt. by taking up arms as many forefathers thought was the reason to have guns. Hence, we are left with hunting and protection. Protection deals with killing, which is what guns are for. I dont know what if right or wrong here, and think it is a debate which is talked of too often, instead of too little.
As far as verbally attacking police officers, I will not quiet my right to free speech when speaking out against cops which abuse their power, misuse their weapons, or take advantage of their position. That has nothing to do with putting anything on the line, that has to do with being a poor officer and and lousy person. While 99% of cops or more may not fit into this category...I will not stop calling out the 1% (or whatever you may think the amout is) that do.
I didn't expect you to engage in the topic at hand anyway. You typically just make sarcastic remarks about things that aren't being discussed, like your problem with law enforcement officers, and make personal remarks about the people who disagree with you. As always, you didn't dissapoint! One thing I can say about ya Vulchor, you are damn sure consistant! lol
Actually Puro, none of that as sarcastic or personal----AT ALL. Its the truth, as I see it----or an opinion to everyone else. Im sorry your a cop and cannot be impartial in this discussion or believe that the jobs you all do are perfect...but the fact is that is not the case. I would think (and hope) you would want to call out bad cops too, since they reflect on your profession as a whole and are why many people do not repect LE like they used to. As for taking things personally, refusing to admit someone else's opinion may hold some water, or (as Kuzi) believing your opinion is more enlightened or informed than everyone else's----you too kind sir didnt fail to disappoint. BTW, that part may have been personal, but only as a response to you making a blanket statement about my posts simply because your dont agree with the opinion stated.
As far as trying to engage the so called "topic at hand", are there any statistics that show the % of crimes using regular guns vs assault weapons -----as compared to the amount of each type of gun possessed by citizens (estimated)? That may be a reason.
Actually Puro, none of that as sarcastic or personal----AT ALL. Its the truth, as I see it----or an opinion to everyone else. Im sorry your a cop and cannot be impartial in this discussion or believe that the jobs you all do are perfect...but the fact is that is not the case. I would think (and hope) you would want to call out bad cops too, since they reflect on your profession as a whole and are why many people do not repect LE like they used to. As for taking things personally, refusing to admit someone else's opinion may hold some water, or (as Kuzi) believing your opinion is more enlightened or informed than everyone else's----you too kind sir didnt fail to disappoint. BTW, that part may have been personal, but only as a response to you making a blanket statement about my posts simply because your dont agree with the opinion stated.
No, I know there are many bad cops out there, I can't stand them either, it just had absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were talking about. It escapes me why in stead of contributing to the conversation at hand you choose to speak on something that had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I do not understand you constantly focusing on the 1% or so of cops who are a problem instead of the thousands of cops out there that put their lives on the line day after day for you and everyone else out there. But that is your right to b*tch about all you want. I just didn't feel it had any thing to do with what had been posted. As to the numbers of assault weapons used in gun crimes...
If you had read the article that was posted in the actual topic you would have seen that
"Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes."
That theory has been tried, but it is a load of crap. Assualt weapons account for a tiny amount of the total gun crimes in America. The actual reason "assault weapons" were targeted is because it is easy to get an uneducated public behind something they don't clearly understand. I read about a poll where people were asked what the "assault rifle ban" of the Clinton era outlawed, and damn near every person said it bans "machine guns." When in actuality that ban was on semi-automatic weapons ONLY. Assault weapons look scary to an uneducated public.
I actually did read the article sm@rtass, and was asking what % of "normal" guns owned are used in crimes as opposed to what % of assault weapons owned are used in crimes. I believe the % may be much higher.
Of course thats what politics does...scare scare scare, and make people believe their best interests are being protected. We had it for 8 yrs with Bush and Cheney---but I know, thats over and a different topic, so I shouldnt use that point. Also, I would watch out about making topics devolve into ways they were not started because everyone is as gulity of that as I am or else we wouldnt be talking about the same $hit everyday with nothing going on but reinforcing our own beliefs and finding like minded people to soothe our fragile egos.
As far as trying to engage the so called "topic at hand", are there any statistics that show the % of crimes using regular guns vs assault weapons -----as compared to the amount of each type of gun possessed by citizens (estimated)? That may be a reason.
Uneducated public ......thats my personal opinion of why Barak Obama is President right now ...and we will pay for it for 4 years till he's not re-elected ! Just my opinion didn't mean to de-rail thread ...Sorry Volchur did not mean to quote your post and don't have time to fix it ...
Just wanted to say that I did my part today as an official "Right Wing Nut Job" today. I went to a gun show... I think I've still got a bit of a stiffie! Damn I could spend millions at those shows!!!
Just wanted to say that I did my part today as an official "Right Wing Nut Job" today. I went to a gun show... I think I've still got a bit of a stiffie! Damn I could spend millions at those shows!!!
Just wanted to say that I did my part today as an official "Right Wing Nut Job" today. I went to a gun show... I think I've still got a bit of a stiffie! Damn I could spend millions at those shows!!!
Lol---Funny I must admit. The real right wing religious nuts couldnt have afforded the price of admission however, nor met the "2 tooth minimum" requirement.
Lol---Funny I must admit. The real right wing religious nuts couldnt have afforded the price of admission however, nor met the "2 tooth minimum" requirement.
Now thats a damned lie! Jerry Fallwell could have afforded the $6 to get in, and they might not be his real teeth, but he has more than 2! lmao
Lol---Funny I must admit. The real right wing religious nuts couldnt have afforded the price of admission however, nor met the "2 tooth minimum" requirement.
i thought that the real "religious right" was a bunch of corporate fat cats that wanted corporations to take over the world?
Kuzi----Dont make me ask the question about fist-a-cuff's in your childhood again......Just enjoy a little humor for once instead of having your nose in something just for the sake of having a word.
and to answer your question: i have never been beat up. i had many friends and few foes. the one time someone did try and start *** with me they realized i would easily overpower them. I was a serious athlete. I ran cross country, played soccer, lifted with the football team, threw discuss for the track team. there was never a season where i was not playing some sport. i was in very good shape but would always use my athleticism for a positive goal instead of fighting.
now, can you stop asking attacking questions that dont further the debate at hand focus on using your mind in a positive fashion by taking part in an intellectually open and honest debate, focusing on facts and theories, not hate and mud slinging?
I will do my best ---------Discuss always interested the hell out of me BTW for some reason....as did the javelin (sp?) and shotput... seemed very Roman and harkened my historical side toward a different time of sports, if that makes any sense.
Discuss always interested the hell out of me BTW for some reason....as did the javelin (sp?) and shotput... seemed very Roman and harkened my historical side toward a different time of sports, if that makes any sense.
the javelin scared the *** out of me. i dont want to accidentally impale someone.
Comments
such as being able to deduct less off your taxes, a more tangled web or regulation on nonprofit groups and how they can gather money and what they can to with it, and as mentioned above, the attitude that the government is there to ensure that you are happy. this has never been the job of the government. in fact, this is one of the reasons why libertarianism speaks to me so much.
http://www.npt.org/philanthropy/philanthropy_stats.asp
if we didnt have the entitlement programs, the decrease of tax wright offs, and a very cumbersome regulation system for non-profits, there may have been/be even more charity.
i mean, the above listed dont exactly PROMOTE charity.
of course we will never know. its all speculation. but its an interesting thing to think about.
Stats in this post were found at
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
As far as verbally attacking police officers, I will not quiet my right to free speech when speaking out against cops which abuse their power, misuse their weapons, or take advantage of their position. That has nothing to do with putting anything on the line, that has to do with being a poor officer and and lousy person. While 99% of cops or more may not fit into this category...I will not stop calling out the 1% (or whatever you may think the amout is) that do.
If you had read the article that was posted in the actual topic you would have seen that
"Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes."
That theory has been tried, but it is a load of crap. Assualt weapons account for a tiny amount of the total gun crimes in America. The actual reason "assault weapons" were targeted is because it is easy to get an uneducated public behind something they don't clearly understand. I read about a poll where people were asked what the "assault rifle ban" of the Clinton era outlawed, and damn near every person said it bans "machine guns." When in actuality that ban was on semi-automatic weapons ONLY. Assault weapons look scary to an uneducated public.
Of course thats what politics does...scare scare scare, and make people believe their best interests are being protected. We had it for 8 yrs with Bush and Cheney---but I know, thats over and a different topic, so I shouldnt use that point. Also, I would watch out about making topics devolve into ways they were not started because everyone is as gulity of that as I am or else we wouldnt be talking about the same $hit everyday with nothing going on but reinforcing our own beliefs and finding like minded people to soothe our fragile egos.
Uneducated public ......thats my personal opinion of why Barak Obama is President right now ...and we will pay for it for 4 years till he's not re-elected ! Just my opinion didn't mean to de-rail thread ...Sorry Volchur did not mean to quote your post and don't have time to fix it ...
i WAS making a joke...
i have never been beat up. i had many friends and few foes. the one time someone did try and start *** with me they realized i would easily overpower them. I was a serious athlete. I ran cross country, played soccer, lifted with the football team, threw discuss for the track team. there was never a season where i was not playing some sport. i was in very good shape but would always use my athleticism for a positive goal instead of fighting.
now, can you stop asking attacking questions that dont further the debate at hand focus on using your mind in a positive fashion by taking part in an intellectually open and honest debate, focusing on facts and theories, not hate and mud slinging?