Soxbadger

Japan has no gangs. Yakuza are a myth created by the liberal media. And if its gangs that are the issue, then I assume in areas without gangs innocent civilians shouldnt get to carry guns? Seems kind of like a red herring to me.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) I argued as I misconstrued your view the same as you misconstrued mine. I thought you wanted, like many other anti-gun crazies, an outright ban on all guns. I was obviously wrong from lumping you into that crowd. No problem, wont be the last time I misconstrue someone's position.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) We don't disagree that restrictions work depending on what item we're talking about. It's a lot easier to restrict a helicopter that cost a billion dollars than it is to restrict a gun that costs 200 and can be mass produced. My point is, restrictions aren't enough. The laws protecting those restrictions are weak. That's where the fix is. The laws we have now are enough to stop a law abiding citizen from breaking gun restriction laws, which are essentially a fine/possibly very short jail sentence. I agree, I have no idea why you were ever arguing with me. All ive said is that it should be up to local govt to dictate the restrictions and penalties. So if Chicago wants to ban hand guns and say its a 5 year sentence, so be it. I still dont see what the point of this argument was.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) I kind of made that clear in a previous post, which you didn't read. Which is expected, since you don't read what people say before replying. Restrictions are necessary, on guns, drugs, etc...all of which should be legal, but the penalties are far too weak to prompt the criminal element to care. We don't need more restrictions. We need heavier penalties. So heavy that the message is sent once and for all. You don't f*** with this. But putting more red tape in the way of the law abiding citizen, which is what they do when they talk about gun restrictions/laws, does nothing. And even when they did mark the penalties harsher they hardly did much in the way of harsh. Our current penalty is a "felony", but it's a weak felony with a weak outcome. Now you know my stance. ...and yes, I was sooo afraid to post that. Okay so after all your sniping your position is in agreement with mine. What was the exact point of this nonsense?

Further point, United Kingdom. Compare, United Kingdom gun violence to US gun violence. Compare, UK gun ownership to US gun ownership. Its to simplistic to use the blanket statement that "gun restriction doesnt work" but thats why we are now back in JR High arguing, because we are going to make very broad over-generalized statements and then name call when the other person makes a much more sophisticated and nuanced response. Now to Jr High debate: Guns kill people. Youre a murderer if you want people to have guns. Arent you sad about the people who died. Youre a bad bad person. Feel free to respond to whichever argument is more your speed.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) Seriously. I'm attacking the person because in this instance they deserved to be attacked. You implied that gun laws are why criminals don't have nukes and comanche helicopters. You deserved the response you got. No I used hyperbole to show that restrictions on weapons do work. That its well established that if you restrict weaponry they wont proliferate as quickly. Now guns are slightly different because they are already in mass circulation. But your point that gun restrictions dont work was an over-generalization. Sorry for calling you on that, guess it makes me retarded.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) You quoted my post and said I was disconnected. If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it. /points up Still waiting.

Look up the word hyperbole and get back to me.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) This is just retarded. Wow. Just...wow. Seriously, this is your retort? Go back to school, child. Gun restrictions aren't why criminals don't have nuclear weapons, nor are they why they don't own comanche helicopters. We have restrictions on criminals now, it's felony to possess an illegal firearm...however, the fines/sentences on that felony are negligible. Haha When you have no argument attack the person. Classic! Like I said, the day you are brave enough to state your own position, is the day your argument gets taken seriously. If you want a seat at the table, stand up and own your position. Is the reason you should suggest I go back to school because you want to debate like its junior high? Because if thats the case why not just call each other names and see who wins the popularity contest.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) What's disingenuous is this entire rant, since you have no idea what my stance on this matter is, which is apparent, since you got it all wrong. We already have well established restrictions on guns, and they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. That's the problem. They're bad restrictions. The only thing these restrictions do is penalize the law abiding citizen, in the form of fees, taxes, wait lists, etc...while doing nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. What I'm not for, however, is 0 restrictions on guns, but thank you very much for trying. You quoted my post and said I was disconnected. And your post is nonsense. False. How many criminals do you know that own nuclear weapons? Or how many criminals do you know that own a comache helicopter? Weapon restrictions obviously work. The problem is that there are so many guns already, you cant put the horse back in the barn. Its funny that you dont even comment on the only restriction I mention (note I never said anything about wait lists, taxes, fees), which is carrying in public. And its not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (impossible), its about having another tool to convict criminals when they are in public, possessing a deadly weapon. If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it? Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk? Jenks, Gay marriage is a little bit more tricky because I think that equality is a fundamental issue and therefore I do not believe that states or local govt have the right to legislate inequality. IE A state can not have slavery. That being said, I am willing to discuss all options that make sure all couples (gay/straight) are entitled to the same benefits. I dont believe govt should be in the marriage game at all. Its complex, but I am willing to listen to reasonable proposals about how to ensure everyone gets equal benefits. For example, if a state was to give no benefits to any married couple, I would have no problem with denying benefits to gay couples. I personally find there to be more moving pieces. As to your second point. Nope wouldnt bother me at all. Just like it doesnt bother me that certain states have different driving laws or different drinking laws, etc. If a town allowed guns and I thought that it was dangerous, I could simply avoid it. Just like if I think that I have a good chance of being arrested in a certain area/city/state I avoid it. I dont go out of my way to look for trouble, so if they want to live in a gun filled paradise, more power to them.

Im feeling a reverse of Obama/Romney. Biden sticks to nonsense talking points, Ryan tries to be analytical, end result people think Biden won.

I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns. Its a disingenuous argument. Farmteam, I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me. Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply: Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership. As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice. From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense.

You said it as "justification to raise taxes". I merely said that a possible outcome of having a gun, showing that a gun can protect you, or a gun cant hurt you. Still dont understand how that relates to taxes or anything else in your post. If you want to argue that no one has ever been disarmed before, we can, not sure that I care as I was merely stating a hypothetical situation where more guns are bad.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) More opportunity for the rest of us? We don't have they money to just pick up where they left off, especially when the growing tax burden gets shifted further down the ladder. Yep because outside of estate taxes (which most smart rich people dont pay anyways), capital gains and a few others, taxes are not paid on money sitting in a bank (The interest would be taxable as income, I meant money just sitting doing nothing). So Bill Gates already paid his income tax on the money he earned in the US. And so when he leaves (I know hes retired im just using him as an example) there will have to be a new CEO of Microsoft, who will then pay income tax, just like Bill Gates did before he left. High end earners almost always have jobs that are going be immediately replaced. Fortune 500 companies dont lose their CEOs to have no CEO replace them. Now if you started to see entire companies stop doing business in the US, then you have a problem. But fortunately I believe the US is still the biggest buyer on the block, which means every company wants a piece of our sweet sweet ass. Everyone is replaceable rich people, poor people, especially when you have a line at the door. The day we have more emigration than immigration, is the day I start to worry.

Semantic arguments are boring. US income tax is progressive, its a fact. Why not argue about whether it should be more progressive, instead of trying to spin in circles over whether its technically progressive. Because who really cares if its progressive. We are supposedly capitalists and Adam Smith proposed a progressive tax in wealth of nations. Its not rocket science, its merely a question of what rates are the best.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) Or what will happen is exactly what's happening in Spain, where the rich are leaving the country as fast as possible, negating pretty much every effort of Spain to rebound since they depend so heavily on those same rich people to operate. Go ahead and leave. More opportunity for the rest of us. If you can find a better country that is cheaper than the US, go for it. But there is a reason why you are paying less taxes in those countries, and why the ultra-rich just dont run to them. Im not afraid of their threats, they arent going anywhere. This is the best country, thats why you pay to stay here. There are thousands of millionaires who would love to come to the US right now.

The reason rich people should want to pay more taxes is that if this country falls apart, they are going to be the ones who lose the most. You pay your taxes so you get to keep your earned position in society. Its much better to pay an extra 1% than to have a revolution. Its not about fair, its about being smart. At the end of the day, all those pretty 0s in their bank account are worthless if there is no country to enforce the obligations. Its silly, but whatever. I guess the medium rich know the ultra rich will always pay, because they understand that when youre making $100mil, paying an extra $1mil is priceless compared to losing everything.

The US tax rate is absolutely progressive.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) Of course this thread would have about five posts in it if that weren't the case. Im not being dishonest, I have no horse in this race. I read your article. It seemed like something I read 4 years ago, but was lacking pertinent information. I then went and got the source material, and found out what it was lacking. I then commented that it was lacking X,Y and Z, therefore it does not give the full picture. For all I know the full picture the high income earners have a larger burden, but I dont know because they didnt actually do the math. Im not going to sit and guess like they are either. IE Were guessing based on a trend, maybe we are right, maybe we are wrong. Not exactly the type of science Ill hang my hat on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) So the other taxes don't count, just because of their classification. Gotcha. They do count. The article you sited, does not include them, thus the article does not give the full picture of tax burden. I have no idea the total tax burden, never claimed to. I merely stated (correctly) that the article you quoted was misleading, and that the real article (4 years old) explicitly stated that there were many taxes not counted. /shrugs No idea what youre arguing, I quoted the original tax foundation article. Its not my fault that the article you decided to bring to the table purposefully omitted this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) And taxes that the US taxpayer pays too. Those aren't the only two taxes that rich people pay. Im not disagreeing at all. Im just saying that the article is misleading. Its only 2 factors, it does not give the overall numbers of the entire tax burden. I dont know if the US burden is higher or lower, I do know that this article does not answer the question. But instead selectively takes 2 taxes and states the US is higher. /shrugs Acting like this is new is a joke. The study is 4 years old, its been hammered to death. I cant believe that this is new to anyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) There sure are. And you just ignored the ones in the US in your example. Are you confusing state/local tax. Because the US does not have a VAT tax on all sales. There may be a few federal taxes, but those are exceptions. When you go to Target/Walmart, you dont pay national sales tax.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) This flat out shows that more taxes come from the richest taxpayers than anywhere else. The highest brackets are paying a way higher percentage of the taxes in this country. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system No it doesnt, the original article in 2008 clearly states that its only showing income/social security, its not taking into account other taxes that the US does not collect at all. Its not a complete picture. Because 25% VAT in Sweden is a pretty significant amount of money not to consider.

That article is purposefully misleading. This is an old article, its from 2008: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system Those parts are left out of the Washington Times article. Youll notice that they mention Sweden, Sweden has 25% Vat tax, US 0. So when the rich guy in Sweden buys a $500k Bentley, he pays 25% to the Swedish govt. In the US, 0. Thus the rich pay more federal taxes in Sweden, its just not all "income tax" there are other taxes. Damn conservative media bias.