Huge victory for the 2nd Amendment

[Dragonzbane76]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18elders
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_sc...copkiller.html

This example proves MY poit. See, the guy who shot the two officers was a convicted felon. That means it was illegal for him to possess a firearm. YET HE DID. So the existing gun laws were ok, the criminal just chose to break those laws. How would more laws have stopped the guy from carrying that gun? You know they would not have. But more gun laws will create more unarmed victims for human garbage like this guy. Am I making sense?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 18elders
WESTFIELD, Mass. — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

And Bernie Goetz shot 4 guys attempting to mug him. It cuts both ways, but I want the right to defend myself.

Of course we have accidents, but that one is the parent's fault, not the gun's. I have guns, and I keep them in a room where my friends children who come over are not allowed in. I do not have kids of my own.

have to agree with you on this. It's a 2 way street, what's that saying, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them."

The guy that let his 8 year old fire an uzi was just a bad parent. You can't blame the guns for every idiots behavior out there. Banning guns won''t solve anything, there are studies that show if you ban guns , crime goes up.

I really don't need to comment on the first one, like 1bad said the guy was a convicted felon, he wasn't suppose to have a gun anyways.

[Drake]

I'm for gun CONTROL. Not gun BANNING.

[dimethylsea]

I cannot at this time, as I do not fuly understand that policy.

Wow. Ok... I give you points for a "I don't know". I think that is the first time I've noticed you say something like this.
If this is a topic you wish to educate yourself on point your browser to www.mises.org and start reading.

Reaganomics.

When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, record high interest rates, and high unemployment. Aside from 1982, he had a roaring economy. And 1982 had high unemployment because Reagan had to raise interest rates (still well below Carter's record levels) to combat inflation. Once inflation susided Reagan was able to cut interest rates and by 1983 the lost jobs had returned.

Reagan also predicted the USSR would bankrupt themselves, and he was right on that one too.

Actually not quite. Reagan ran on one sort of program, but did something quite different.
I will firmly agree with your last point (i.e. the USSR bankrupting itself) as a lack of market signals in a fully command economy yield profound problems with determining price levels for goods and services (which in turn cause low productivity etc.). I'm going to spin a thread on this visavis Obamacare. Should be fun

Back to Reagan..

Point 1: The Gold Standard.. Reagan ran on returning to the gold standard, but once elected appointed a commission to study the matter, conveniently composed of gold-opponents. The committee (as expected) recommended staying with fiat currency. Sound hard money is a fundamental point of the Austrian school.

Point 2: Government Spending - In 1980, the last year Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986 the Reagan administration & the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Even allowing for inflation adjustment and percentage of GDP (i.e. comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges so to speak) federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 was ~21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, ~24.3%.

Thus it is possible to argue Reagan SLOWED THE GROWTH of federal government spending.. but he most emphatically did not slash or reduce it.
Moreover Reagan's requested budgets and what the Congress passed were remarkably similar. Reagan (despite GOP mythmaking to the contrary) *NEVER* requested a overall federal budget *decrease*.

Point 3: Deficits - Here again the facts are going to be a bit sour given your perception that "Reagan basically did it right". Reagan financed his war and defense spending largely with deficit spending (as do all governments with a fiat currency and vested interests having a seat at the table).
Carter routinely ran budget deficits in the 40-50 billion USD$ range, tending to the mid 70 billion mark by the end of his term.
Care to guestimate Reagan's budget deficit in 1984?
500 BILLION USD$.
That is a level which it pretty much remained during his tenure. Certainly there was no "massive decrease in federal government spending" under Reagan.

So if Carter's economy was crap, and Reagan's was all great once he worked his Presidential mojo on it.. but Reagan's deficits ran 5 to 10 TIMES Carter's what does that say about your pronouncements about deficit spending and the economy?

Keep in mind.. I'm not saying deficits are great or even ok. I think they are part of the inflationary fiat currency disease our society and it's government is addicted to. I am not saying Obama's deficits are good, or will work.

I'm just saying that Reagan WAS NO LIBERTARIAN. He was a statist, and a fan of government (though he liked warfare spending instead of welfare spending.. like many a GOPer).

The upshot of all of the above and the take home is simple.. Reagan is not an example of Austrian, libertarian philosophy. He is not a demonstration of these policies and perspectives being practiced in a modern industrial society.

Anyone who has read alot of Murray Rothbard should agree totally with me on this.

[dimethylsea]

I'm for gun CONTROL. Not gun BANNING.

Gun control is good. That's why we should always point downrange

[Drake]

Gun control is good. That's why we should always point downrange

That's why ARM and room clearing with LTs is EFFIN SCARY. Muzzle awareness. LEARN IT.

[Dragonzbane76]

That's why ARM and room clearing with LTs is EFFIN SCARY. Muzzle awareness. LEARN IT.

being taught the "right way" is a dying tradition though. Parenting is a dying tradition if you also if you ask me also.

[1bad65]

Good reading, but I want to discuss this part.

So if Carter's economy was crap, and Reagan's was all great once he worked his Presidential mojo on it.. but Reagan's deficits ran 5 to 10 TIMES Carter's what does that say about your pronouncements about deficit spending and the economy?

Keep in mind.. I'm not saying deficits are great or even ok. I think they are part of the inflationary fiat currency disease our society and it's government is addicted to. I am not saying Obama's deficits are good, or will work.

Reagan's spending was totally justified in my eyes for one very simple reason; he achieved his goals with it.

He set out to win the Cold War, and he was open and honest about that. And he was successful.

Carter failed with his spending. He had high unemployment, high interest rates, and massive inflation. Reagan had none of those problems (except 1982, but I've explained that before).

Obama is currently failing with his. Again, I say currently. He has just over 2 years left before I/we can judge him fully. Of course we can judge him to this point however. Unemployment is up. Interest rates are at record lows, yet GDP is stagnant. This is not good. Government is growing, and remember, Government costs only increase when the Gov't is growing. Couple the Gov't growth with the private sector stagnation and the debt/income ratio is moving in the wrong direction.

FYI, while Reagan spent money on Gov't, it was not growing the Gov't or entitlements, it was mainly defense spending.