Letter

imported post

Hi guys, i am writing a letter to the editior of a local editior. Currently i live in Pa, and been thinking of open carrying and trying to educate the public about their rights. I wrote this letter to remind myself i am doing nothing wrong, and hopefully i will be able to open carry. Any suggestions (positive/negative) comments, anyhing about this letter will be appreciated.
I live in Pa, if you need to know what statre im comming from.

Now heres the letter i hope-

Why do I not see more people practicing their right to bear arms in Erie?

Ever since starting my education at the college level, I began to wonder why I have to give up my right to carry a concealed weapon just to receive my college education. Like countless people before me, I gave 4 years of my life to serving the country, and protecting those so called rights that we all live by since the Constitution was written.

If I was a bad guy I would be less likely to attack someone with a plain sight weapon, knowing he could get his weapon out faster then I could getting my concealed weapon out. Let me remind you I am a law abiding citizen. There a numerous posts on these websites that I have been too saying something like man carrying a weapon deters bank robbery, man with gun deters mugging, etc. I think more people should not be afraid of the anti gun critics and carry their firearms with pride and support the Constitution.

If you are reading this, and would like more information on this topic I suggest you go to OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!, http://www.defensivecarry.com, and Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association. I think their members for sharing their information and experiences with me. The main reason why I do not open carry in the city of Erie is because going to Walmart that one time and having some insane crazy woman screaming GUN, GUN, GUN. Having her calling the local PD, and having them showing up and detaining me, that sounds so exciting that I would have to pass. To those anti gun aka “sheep”, not everyone with a weapon is a bad guy. We actually take our Constitution seriously and live by what it says. To those individuals that do not feel safe around our weapons. Sure you can go to a manger saying you feel unsafe around me because I have a weapon. I will go outside and conceal my weapon then come back in. But will you be OK when I tell a manager I feel unsafe around you because you look like a shady character., or when I tell the manager I feel unsafe around your knife that is hanging on your belt? I can go on and on with reasons why someone should report to a manager for countless reasons why they feel unsafe around someone else. To the store owners that do not display a “no guns allowed,” save your time and our time and post a sign, so we can just conceal our weapons and carry them in your stores anyways. To the stores that support the right to bear arms by citizens good job, I will conduct my business and give you my money any day you want.

I have no experience dealing with local police when open carrying. I have not read anything on the internet, nor heard anything from my fellow gun activists. All I can say to those gun owners who are scared on dealing with the police, just be honest, straight forward, follow the officers instructions. You are doing nothing wrong, therefor they can not charge you with anything. The main reason why I have not heard anything about police misconduct when it comes to “open carrying”it must be because the police are update on the state gun laws, and do not hassle anyone about open carrying.

Being pro gun I urge my fellow gun carrying citizens to not be afraid of what others may do, I urge you to practice (as I will be doing) displaying your firearm on your hip or however you desire to carry in plain sight and educate others on how the man with the gun isn't always the bad guy, he./she could be the person that saves innocent life's and deter robberies/muggings.

imported post

I like it overall. If you are reading this, and would like more information on this topic I suggest you go to OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!, http://www.defensivecarry.com, and Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association. I think their members for sharing their information and experiences with me. Found an error that spell check won't catch.

But will you be OK when I tell a manager I feel unsafe around you because you look like a shady character; semi colon here or when I tell the manager I feel unsafe around your knife that is hanging on your belt?

Don't know if you noticed those or not, but I figured it would be helpful.

imported post

All I can say to those gun owners who are scaredof dealing with the police, just be honest, straight forward, follow the officers instructions. <sadly, this does not always work and I would recommend some sort of personal recording device that will at least capture audio.>

You are doing nothing wrong, therefor they can not charge you with anything. <Again, this is not always correct and you should read some of the posts here about some of the civil rights violations by police officers.>

The main reason why I have not heard anything about police misconduct when it comes to “open carrying” it<(should be deleted)must be because the police are up to date on the state gun laws, and do not hassle anyone about open carrying. <Again, research this site a bit more before you make such an incorrect statement!>

I recommend that you browse the Michigan State section, look into the General Topics section and I am sure the other's can recommend more specific threads.

I don't want to discourage you, just want you to understand that there is more to the practice of Open Carry than depending upon the local police force to understand and properly uphold the Open Carry Laws of any particular state. As with any other profession, you have your good guys, and you have your jacka$$s ...

imported post

I open carried all around Erie this summer while I was there for 3 weeks in August. I even carried to a Concert downtown on the street ( sorry don't remember the name). I never had any problems at all; while downtown I even passed several officers on foot; they noticed but said nothing. I was into several stores while I was there, and the only annoying part was when I went to Warren to visit other family I couldn't take the Interstate because it went into New York. I am hoping to go back to visit family again this August...if so maybe we'll see each other. Be Safe.

imported post

Nice letter Darkincin....

May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

"Sheep"...

If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

Just my humble opinion.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Nice letter Darkincin....

May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

"Sheep"...

If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

Just my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

So what else do you refer to them as? Useful Idiots? Lenin seemed to like that one... quite descriptive. Mouth breathers? I use that terma lot. What's left... 'Proles?I'm not in the education business. I don't need approval for the free exercise of a right.The negativity isn't generated by the practitoners... it's coming from the non-practitioners.Those who would deny all of us a basic civil right.

I'm not an advocate of 'in-your-face' grandstanding with scary lookin' EBR's and other show-off nonsense; just defensive purpose, properly holstered sidearms carried w/o interference by 'all of the above' and the JBT minded LEA's. VA and PA have been OC now for a number of years and they're still gettin' hassled by these JBT types. When law abiding citizens have more to fear from their government agencies than the criminals... there's something fundamentally wrong with that dynamic.

It's not for nothing thatI chose to make my home in Arizona (coming from the Democratik Socialist Peoples Republik of Marystan).

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Nice letter Darkincin....

May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

"Sheep"...

If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

Just my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

So what else do you refer to them as? Useful Idiots? Lenin seemed to like that one... quite descriptive. Mouth breathers? I use that terma lot. What's left... 'Proles?I'm not in the education business. I don't need approval for the free exercise of a right.The negativity isn't generated by the practitoners... it's coming from the non-practitioners.Those who would deny all of us a basic civil right.

I'm not an advocate of 'in-your-face' grandstanding with scary lookin' EBR's and other show-off nonsense; just defensive purpose, properly holstered sidearms carried w/o interference by 'all of the above' and the JBT minded LEA's. VA and PA have been OC now for a number of years and they're still gettin' hassled by these JBT types. When law abiding citizens have more to fear from their government agencies than the criminals... there's something fundamentally wrong with that dynamic.

It's not for nothing thatI chose to make my home in Arizona (coming from the Democratik Socialist Peoples Republik of Marystan).

Click to expand...

Even if you personally aren't ... many of us are doing this open carry thing for the purpose of educating folks.... educating them on the fact that they too have this "right to keep and bear arms".

What else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet? How about "potential allies" instead of "sheep"?

I personally view the whole of the population as potential allies instead of enemies. Of course there are those who's minds cannot be changed... or even entered. But the vast majority of folks out there actually do have a modicum of common sense... but don't have all the information... they are operating only on the anti gun media bias they have been exposed to for decades.

And referring to them in a derogatory fashion with the label of "sheep" only reinforces in their own minds what the anti's have been saying about those "arrogant gun totin' tough guys".

Basically it is nothing more than a method of interacting with people... If my neighbor came over and said to me... "Hey dork! Come over here and help me mow my lawn." (Like saying.. "Hey sheep! Help me protect the right to keep and bear arms.")

Guess what I would say to my neighbor? Guess what the "sheep" would say about guns?

Whether or not other people have treated me, and my beliefs/agenda, with respect in the past or present..... if I, and my beliefs/agenda, are to be respected it is much more productive to respectfully deal with other people.... especially those people who don't share my beliefs/agenda... and calling them names isn't respectful.

Which is more productive? To fight the world all by yourself? Or to gather allies to fight at your side along with you?

imported post

This is Arizona. We carry guns. It's not a novelty, it's a cultural norm. Thegeography and climatedefeats or strengthens the rest. It's the way of things. If the noobs don't like it... they can go someplace else. I'll tell 'em that too. We don't need their blesssings or acceptance. Look what happened to Florida when the Yankees took over thru complacency and aquiecence.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?

Click to expand...

How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
Not aware of current research?
Opinionated but incorrect?
Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

One of the most useful things I've found for keeping discussions fact-based is the PDF of
research at http://www.gunfacts.info It's about 100 pages of myths about guns knocked
down by research WITH CITATIONS.

So if someone says (incorrectly) that private citizens with guns will shoot innocent
bystanders, I can respond that this study [Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit
laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994] says that 2%
of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person, but11% ofshootings by law enforcement
kill innocent people.

The more factual and unemotional we can be, the better we look compared to the scaremongers
who are afraid of guns. "Look at all this research and experience that says armed citizens
reduce crime!"

imported post

MKEgal wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?

Click to expand...

How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
Not aware of current research?
Opinionated but incorrect?
Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Click to expand...

Definition of a Liberal

imported post

Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Definition of a Liberal

:X
Here we are discussing how to get more people to see things our way, and you go
and start bashing a large part of the population. How will that help? Sometimes people
who self-identify as liberal want to protect themselves, and sometimes they'll even change
their views on other issues. Self-protection isn't solely owned by white republican males.

I used to consider myself a liberal (though not necessarily a Liberal), and in some ways
still do, though I'm becoming more and more libertarian. I've always been a proponent of
self-protection. Hadn't really been a supporter of carrying guns, but wasn't against it
either, and if someone had presented me with a factual argument showing that citizens
with weapons have good results, crime-wise, I would have been all for the idea.

So that's the approach I take with other people - they just don't have enough information
to make a well thought out decision on the matter. Don't let your political views get in the
way of the bigger struggle - preserving the right of self-protection via carrying a gun.

imported post

MKEgal wrote:

Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Definition of a Liberal

:X
Here we are discussing how to get more people to see things our way, and you go
and start bashing a large part of the population. How will that help? Sometimes people
who self-identify as liberal want to protect themselves, and sometimes they'll even change
their views on other issues. Self-protection isn't solely owned by white republican males.

I used to consider myself a liberal (though not necessarily a Liberal), and in some ways
still do, though I'm becoming more and more libertarian. I've always been a proponent of
self-protection. Hadn't really been a supporter of carrying guns, but wasn't against it
either, and if someone had presented me with a factual argument showing that citizens
with weapons have good results, crime-wise, I would have been all for the idea.

So that's the approach I take with other people - they just don't have enough information
to make a well thought out decision on the matter. Don't let your political views get in the
way of the bigger struggle - preserving the right of self-protection via carrying a gun.

Click to expand...

"WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/rossiter/index

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

"The liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: Creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; Satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; Rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government. "The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,"

Knowthy enemy; know thyself. This is not a 'political', 'race' or 'gender' view... it's a psychiatric one. Liberalism is a mental disorder. I don't care if they 'see things our way'... nor amI interested in wasting time to convert them. That in itself is generally an exercise in futility.I don't care if theychoose to defend themselves or not. What I do care about is their persistant interference with the recognized and enumerated Rightof everyone todo so.

imported post

darkincin wrote:

The main reason why I do not open carry in the city of Erie is because going to Walmart that one time and having some insane crazy woman screaming GUN, GUN, GUN. Having her calling the local PD, and having them showing up and detaining me, that sounds so exciting that I would have to pass.

Click to expand...

I have no experience dealing with local police when open carrying. I have not read anything on the internet, nor heard anything from my fellow gun activists.

Click to expand...

Do not send this as-is.

Major logical contradictions:

1. Which is it: did you get detained, or have you never had any dealings with police?
2. You say you "have not read anything on the internet," but you recommendOCDO and PAcarry. So apparently you have read things on the internet.

Many, many typos/spelling errors, sentence fragments, and punctuation errors throughout--too numerous to point them all out.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

MKEgal wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

How else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?

Click to expand...

How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
Not aware of current research?
Opinionated but incorrect?
Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Click to expand...

Definition of a Liberal

Click to expand...

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

OCforAll wrote:

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".

Click to expand...

With respect, I think you may not understand the meaning of the word. "Liberals" think that one group of people should have no right telling other groups of people how they should live their life. Gay marriage, for example. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else that they can't be married? Most people will use Christianity their argument against it, yet when asked to explain how it is we went from Adam & Even to Cavemen, they're unable to even comprehend the idea that their beliefs are illogical. Not to mention the majority doesn't even understand what logic is, and take the statement as an insult. Others, such as those with Prop 8 in California will argue that the people voted on it. Well, that would be great if we were a true Democracy but fortunately, for all of us, we are not. And by "us" I mean all Americans. If we lived in a Democracy then we'd be seeing civil rights violations voted on every year.

Health care is another "Liberal" issue. Irrespective of which propaganda news channel you watch or believe, why on earth should any one American have access to a heath care that another American does not? Filter out the bs of obesity, smokers, drug users, etc. and the concept of personal responsibility. Two people: A billionaire and an out-of-work store clerk. Both have the same exact cancer and the ex-store clerk has no money or insurance. Now, tell me why the government shouldn't provide identical care for both. Explain to me why the billionaire has the right to purchase something that the clerk doesn't.


While I believe that you are more than likely pointing at the morons who think guns are bads, something I agree with you on, I think your statement goes down the same road of ignorance as the very ideology you and I both detest.

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

MKEgal wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?

Click to expand...

How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
Not aware of current research?
Opinionated but incorrect?
Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Click to expand...

Definition of a Liberal

Click to expand...

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

BS! Liberals are the first group who'll tell you you can't do something... and then apply the restrictive sociological clutter masked in phony rhetoric. 'Open minded' is subjectively cherry picked as to what is 'correct' or not. Liberal is a camoflage term forever Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, Communist, Facist, Maoist, Stalinistand National Socialist front that ever existed.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

OCforAll wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

MKEgal wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

How else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?

Click to expand...

How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
Not aware of current research?
Opinionated but incorrect?
Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

Click to expand...

Definition of a Liberal

Click to expand...

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

BS!  Liberals are the first group who'll tell you you can't do something... and then apply the restrictive sociological clutter masked in phony rhetoric.   'Open minded' is subjectively cherry picked as to what is 'correct' or not.  Liberal is a camoflage term for ever Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, Communist, Facist, Maoist, Stalinist and National Socialist front that ever existed.     

Click to expand...

Could you please list everything that us Liberals have told you not to do, as well as cite actual historical events and the specific civil rights that were either taken away from you personally or society as a whole.

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

OCforAll wrote:

By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".

Click to expand...

With respect, I think you may not understand the meaning of the word. "Liberals" think that one group of people should have no right telling other groups of people how they should live their life. Gay marriage, for example. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else that they can't be married? Most people will use Christianity their argument against it, yet when asked to explain how it is we went from Adam & Even to Cavemen, they're unable to even comprehend the idea that their beliefs are illogical. Not to mention the majority doesn't even understand what logic is, and take the statement as an insult. Others, such as those with Prop 8 in California will argue that the people voted on it. Well, that would be great if we were a true Democracy but fortunately, for all of us, we are not. And by "us" I mean all Americans. If we lived in a Democracy then we'd be seeing civil rights violations voted on every year.

Health care is another "Liberal" issue. Irrespective of which propaganda news channel you watch or believe, why on earth should any one American have access to a heath care that another American does not? Filter out the bs of obesity, smokers, drug users, etc. and the concept of personal responsibility. Two people: A billionaire and an out-of-work store clerk. Both have the same exact cancer and the ex-store clerk has no money or insurance. Now, tell me why the government shouldn't provide identical care for both. Explain to me why the billionaire has the right to purchase something that the clerk doesn't.


While I believe that you are more than likely pointing at the morons who think guns are bads, something I agree with you on, I think your statement goes down the same road of ignorance as the very ideology you and I both detest.

Click to expand...

Returning the respect you offered me.

I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Returning the respect you offered me.

I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

Click to expand...

(I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.