[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Even you have to admit that Sanders offers no official policy on foreign relations nor other domestic issues aside from anything that is tied to his economic policies.

What would that have to do with me respecting him as candidate that isn't as far as we've seen a perpetual liar, like his opponent. I'm confused, how me seeing Clinton as a criminal in some ways and respecting Bernie for not being one, turns into an all out endorsement for the guy, when I've argued against him and his supporters (@R1600Turbo could probably refresh your memory). I find it amusing that the clear right leaning members in this thread (not all) are who are taking issue with this.

 

[Sanji Himura]

What would that have to do with me respecting him as candidate that isn't as far as we've seen a perpetual liar, like his opponent. I'm confused, how me seeing Clinton as a criminal in some ways and respecting Bernie for not being one, turns into an all out endorsement for the guy, when I've argued against him and his supporters (@R1600Turbo could probably refresh your memory). I find it amusing that the clear right leaning members in this thread (not all) are who are taking issue with this.

I'm not saying that you are not right, because you are. However, we have seen some candidates who are taking the Saul Alinsky's playbook and trying to use it to discredit their opponents (Trump), a woman who should be better suited for an orange jumper with all the cover ups that she participated in the past (Clinton) and a senile old man who has no business being in the presidential race at all at this point (Kasich.)

I get that you are not endorsing Sanders, but he is indeed old, and will lead this country to ruin if he even remotely gets what he wants.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What would that have to do with me respecting him as candidate that isn't as far as we've seen a perpetual liar, like his opponent. I'm confused, how me seeing Clinton as a criminal in some ways and respecting Bernie for not being one, turns into an all out endorsement for the guy, when I've argued against him and his supporters (@R1600Turbo could probably refresh your memory). I find it amusing that the clear right leaning members in this thread (not all) are who are taking issue with this.

You're confused. I have in no way suggested that you endorse Bernie, I simply said that I don't separate Bernie the candidate from Bernie and his economic policies. They are one and the same to me. He can be as pious as Jesus in his beliefs but that doesn't mean I would consider him to be a suitable candidate for the office if push came to shove with him and Hillary.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not saying that you are not right, because you are. However, we have seen some candidates who are taking the Saul Alinsky's playbook and trying to use it to discredit their opponents (Trump), a woman who should be better suited for an orange jumper with all the cover ups that she participated in the past (Clinton) and a senile old man who has no business being in the presidential race at all at this point (Kasich.)

I get that you are not endorsing Sanders, but he is indeed old, and will lead this country to ruin if he even remotely gets what he wants.

I agree, it's wrong that they do that, but we shouldn't cherry pick who does it, rather than they all do. I feel the post was to just highlight to remind those who like Sander, through his eyes (penso), that he too is just another politician. Which I don't think others fully disagreed with in the first place.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You're confused. I have in no way suggested that you endorse Bernie, I simply said that I don't separate Bernie the candidate from Bernie and his economic policies. They are one and the same to me. He can be as pious as Jesus in his beliefs but that doesn't mean I would consider him to be a suitable candidate for the office if push came to shove with him and Hillary.

Neither do I, but your post coincides with this debate about his economic policies, and you use a clip where he tries to denounce Clinton based on...economics and those she would help if elected. And thus it only seemed right to make it clear that I don't support his economics, nor do I say you should support him, but comparing him to someone being yet again investigated by some type of regulatory government agency...isn't fair. That'd mean that to you he's done something just as profound and damning to the American people and position of power.

As I said and will note again since you missed it and it basically says what you're saying. I said that when the general election comes then sure, him as a complete candidate will be weighed by me and others on how suitable he is. But right now I don't think Clinton deserves to be a candidate, and even before the FBI investigation I felt she didn't deserve it. This just solidified the belief. I don't like him all around because many of his policies are either overly optimistic (like others he faces), or just don't mesh with my personal values. But if I had to pick between him or Hillary, it'd be quite easy.

 

[Pillo-san]

What an interesting comment. Let's look closer at it:
Is that freedom? I mean, it certainly looks like the person going to the university/college is free to do it, but it must be paid for somehow right? So do the people who actually pay for it have freedom? Do the people who have to provide this level of education to you have freedom?

How free do you think they would be if they refused?Is that freedom? I mean, it certainly looks like the person getting the meals is free to do it, as are their parents, but it must be paid for somehow right? So do the people who actually pay for it have freedom? Do the people who have to provide this food to you have freedom?

How free do you think they would be if they refused?

You seem to think that freedom is the ability to do whatever you want on someone else's dime - but not the ability to refuse to pay for it.Odd way of saying 20 rounds/second...Do you really need a car that does 0-60mph in 10s? Do you really need nice food? Do you really need an en suite bathroom, or a garden, or a garage? Do you really need three kids, when two is enough to replace you and whomever you're having kids with?

Of course not. These are things that exceed mere needs - they are wants and desires. They are things that you can do, have and buy if you are free to do so. Who are you to question how much freedom other people need?

When you place limits on freedom, it isn't freedom.

I was about to write an essay but erased it because you simply do not want to grasp that everybody in a country/society need to help out because we all take part in it. You are using roads/you are using water/electricity you need schools/hospitals/agencies/police/military and a safety net if you get ill/hurt/jobless. If someone does not want to use those services and have they have a job then they are free to refrain from using those services if they use them without paying their share. A typical worker that pays 1/3 of his income to tax has usually all the freedom in the world. He has an steady income, he does not need to worry about getting ill and he does help others around him. There are no restrictions on freedom here like in Usa. Just saying: When place limits on freedom is not freedom is just silly. How restricted are we here? Ok, things are naturally more expensive, but in turn we have a lot basic freedom, so to say.

And you talk about needs and desires, no safety net here does not give you a big house, garden, cars, stuff. You will get money so that it will be enough to survive without getting homeless. Ok if you have a big villa, and car you need to sell and move to more affordable housing before you can relay on the safety net.(if you never worked) If you are fired or something you have unemployment compensation that is up to 80% of 1800buck a month, then you can even get extra insurance for a monthly fee and have like 100% of your salary for a given amount of days, usually up to 300days. And in mean time you can seek out a new work. There are no freebies if you are not actually in extremely need of it.(poor/ill)

Why is it so bad and a big no no to pay just a tad more in tax if everything else in society will be a tad better.

 

[Tornado]

What word do you think you're using every time you say the word "freedom"?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I was about to write an essay but erased it because you simply do not want to grasp that everybody in a country/society need to help out because we all take part in it. You are using roads/you are using water/electricity you need schools/hospitals/agencies/police/military and a safety net if you get ill/hurt/jobless. If someone does not want to use those services and have they have a job then they are free to refrain from using those services if they use them without paying their share. A typical worker that pays 1/3 of his income to tax has usually all the freedom in the world. He has an steady income, he do not need to worry about getting ill and he does help others around him. There are no restrictions on freedom here like in Usa. Just saying: When place limits on freedom is not freedom is just silly. How restricted are we here? Ok, things are naturally more expensive, but in turn we have a lot basic freedom, so to say.

And you talk about needs and desires, no safety net here does not give you a big house, garden, cars, stuff. You will get money so that it will be enough to survive without getting homeless. Ok if you have a big villa, and car you need to sell and move to more affordable housing before you can relay on the safety net.(if you never worked) If you are fired or something you have unemployment compensation that is up to 80% of 1800buck a month, then you can even get extra insurance for a monthly fee and have like 100% of your salary for a given amount of days, usually up to 300days. And in mean time you can seek out a new work. There are no freebies if you are not actually in extremely need of it.(poor/ill)

Why is it so bad and a big no no to pay just a tad more in tax if everything else in society will be a tad better.

Here is an idea. How about answering some of the specific questions that were directed at you instead of just continually making speeches?

 

[Famine]

I was about to write an essay but erased it because you simply do not want to grasp that everybody in a country/society need to help out because we are all take part in it.

Uh-huh. You got that from me asking you some questions that you apparently don't want to answer?

You are using roads

And I pay per use. If I don't use them I don't pay.

you are using water/electricity

And I pay per use. If I don't use them I don't pay.

you need schools

I went to a private school. I paid per use. If I hadn't used it I wouldn't have paid.

/hospitals/agencies/police/military and a safety net if you get ill/hurt/jobless.

And I'm forced to pay for those even if I do not use them. Perhaps you'll spot the difference between these things.

Police and military are valid functions of government though - to protect rights. Pity they don't protect the rights of people not to have their property taken from them by force by government though.

If someone does not want to use those services and have they have a job then they are free to refrain from using those services if they use them without paying their share.

They are not free to refrain from paying for them though.

A typical worker that pays 1/3 of his income to tax is has usually have all the freedom in the world.

Except the freedom to not pay for things he does not use...

Just saying when place limits on freedom is not freedom is just silly.

Yet it's true. Freedom is an absolute quality. Make limits on it and it's not freedom. You are not free to roam if your movements are restricted. You are not free to speak if what you say is restricted. You are not free if you are restricted.

You originally berated someone for talking about freedom when they had no idea what it meant. You apparently understand freedom to mean something that it doesn't mean.

there are no restrictions on freedom here like in Usa. how restricted are we here?

Try not paying your income tax and see how free you are.

Ok, things are naturally more expensive, but in turn we have a lot basic freedom so to say.

Define "basic freedom".

And you talk about needs and desires, no safety net here does not give you a big house, garden, cars, stuff. you will get money so that it will be enough to survive without getting homeless. Ok if you have a big villa, and car you need to sell and move to more affordable housing before you can relay on the safety net. if you are fired or something you have
unemployment compensation that is up to 80% of 1800buck a month, then you can even get extra insurance for a monthly fee and have like 100% of your salary for a given amount of days, usually up to 300days. and in mean time you can seek out a new work. there are no freebies if you are not actually in extremely need of it.

This all seems to be gibberish, but I'll remind you that you asked who really needs a gun that fires 20 rounds a second when a normal gun is just fine - I merely asked you who needs a big house when a small one is just fine. Objecting to me saying that because... something something safety net... is fine, but you need to look at your own statement first.

Why is it so bad and a big no no to pay just a tad more in tax if everything else in society will be a tad better.

Why is it so bad and a big no no to just let people have the money they have worked for rather than punishing them for having jobs, producing things for society and earning money so that their own lives are a tad better?

Bear in mind that everything that a government can do, a private company can do better because private companies do not tolerate waste and profligacy the same way that governments do routinely. Bear in mind that governments pay private companies to provide services like roads, electricity and water - because private companies are experts at what they do, or they would fail - so paying for them by income tax is an extra layer of waste that only goes to pay government officials. Bear in mind that if governments are responsible for healthcare, only approved treatments are given, so if you need lifesaving experimental medication you can't have it. Bear in mind that if governments are responsible for schools, only approved things are taught, so your children could be indoctrinated with the most awful nonsense - there's a reason we don't let governments control the press in the West...

 

[Pillo-san]

Here is an idea. How about answering some of the specific questions that were directed at you instead of just continually making speeches?

I thought I did, freedom for me is being able to go where ever I want when I want in my own country, even to neighbouring countries. I can even camp on private properties(land/woods/parks if I do not destroy things/keeps things in order. Like in Usa I need money to buy things like cars/house/travel and for that I need a Job. But stuff that has to do with my health and well being is almost free. Do not forget we are just like you a capitalistic country and politicians are constantly lowering taxes making the system worse and worse by the day. More like Usa day by day, but I do hope that our freedom remains.




Ok Famine, I have to agrea. We have to pay our taxes, the system is based on it after all. but you will not get behind the bars for it. Only if you are a crook, like maffia money laundry and stuff like that. Every year you will get papers that says how much you earned and how much you have payed in tax. And if you will get back or have to pay extra(if you declared income from fonds/shares. there is no prizon for that. the thing is, we have not that hard punishments here. life is usually 12-15 years behind the bars if I recall correctly, but if you have done something like Anders breivik then you will be locked up for life.

And the thing is, sure when the state pays(we tax payers) it will be the least expensive option but we are known waste a lot of money in some sectors. If a section have cash over, well they will buy new office furnitures and stuff to get larger funds next year.

school, well we are quite secular and teach evolution/physic laws/nature laws from class 1. but the discipline has declined quit badly in classes nowadays. Pupils rule the School basically but that is with the less and less taxpaying coming in. and we do have private schools and hospitals too.

And yeah, you do use roads or side walks? do you pay every time you go out? do you pay for the cables that are in the ground making it possible for you to use electricity.

About that gibberish, it is true.

not a perfect society but it seems that if bad things happen to you you are better of here than in Usa. and you can live a lavish life just like in usa if you have a good job.

 

[Famine]

Ok Famine, I have to agrea. We have to pay our taxes, the system is based on it after all. but you will not get behind the bars for it. Only if you are a crook, like maffia money laundry and stuff like that. Every year you will get papers that says how much you earned and how much you have payed in tax. And if you will get back or have to pay extra(if you declared income from fonds/shares. there is no prizon for that. the thing is, we have not that hard punishments here. life is usually 12-15 years behind the bars if I recall correctly, but if you have done something like Anders breivik then you will be locked up for life.

Then stop paying it. Give the money you would pay to charities instead - they waste far less money and spend it on their specific field of interest. And, unlike the government, they are experts in that field.

And the thing is, sure when the state pays(we tax payers) it will be the least expensive option but we are known waste a lot of money in some sectors. If a section have cash over, well they will buy new office furnitures and **** to get larger funds next year.

It's usually only the least expensive option when it comes to paying for things for the general population. When it's spending money on themselves, it'll be the most expensive option. And yes, they'll ensure they spend as much of their budget as possible - even overspending - to keep their budget for the next year.

And yeah, you do use roads or side walks?

Yes. Mainly the former.

do you pay every time you go out?

Generally speaking, local roads are paid for in local taxation, not the Exchequer. For those that are paid out of the Exchequer, we do not have a hypothecated tax system so it cannot be said where the money came from - however I pay duty on fuel, VAT on fuel, VAT on fuel duty, VED for my cars and insurance tax. VED and insurance tax are one-off payments each year, the latter variable depending on what the insurance costs, while fuel costs are pay-per-use.

do you pay for the cables that are in the ground making it possible for you to use electricity.

Yes. Electricity is provided by private companies and infrastructure costs are part of the costs.

Water is also specifically demarcated into supply and waste costs, paying for the pipes that bring water in and the effluent pipes that take water away, as far as the limits of my property.

About that gibberish, it is true.

The problem is that it was unreadable and just as applicable to your comments about who needs a 20 round/second gun.

 

[Danoff]

Ok Famine, I have to agrea. We have to pay our taxes, the system is based on it after all. but you will not get behind the bars for it.

In the US, if you don't pay your taxes the government shows up with guns. Here you'll be paying your taxes or end up dead or in jail. Those are your options.

 

[ryzno]

In the US, if you don't pay your taxes the government shows up with guns. Here you'll be paying your taxes or end up dead or in jail. Those are your options.

I'm still waiting for them...

 

[Pillo-san]

Okey, if I can not make some things understandable then it is my fault, I try my best after all.

but the thing is, what i want to convey is that Socialist countries as you call us are not freedom stealers as the Elite in Usa want you to think. People are people and we are based on a capitalistic system but with higher taxation just to provide basic needs that humans need. Good health is a human right not a privilege.

About the guns, do you need different license for different vehicles? Sure you do. Can you drive a tank with a normal license in town? Hmm I guess not, so why should a military grade weapon (assault rifle) be allowed for citizen that have not proper education as a soldier? Do you see my point? A hunting rifle or a revolver/pistol is not enough for self defence?
As a normal serving Soldier I stand by that a civilian should not be allowed to carry/own a assault weapon if he/she is not properly trained as a real soldier or as a (home defence) personnel. Are you allowed to drive a tank with your car license or fly a fighting jet if you have certificate for a simple air plane like cessna or the more advance Boeing 747?

Like you said before, there is difference for necessity and desire especially in this case. It has nothing to do with freedom, You want to play with guns, become a soldier. You are free do to so.

 

[ryzno]

Nevermind.

 

[mustafur]

I'm not saying I stand for anybody, just offering up a clip and my take on it. But if one was forced to make a choice then it's not a question of standing up for one as a "good" candidate in my mind, it's more the lesser of two evils.

Which has nothing to do with the question asked in the debate. The question was not "what have you done Bernie", it was "can you name one decision she made as Senator that shows she favoured big banks" and he didn't have one because there isn't one. All Bernie has is that Hillary and Bill took large speaking fees from all kinds of corporations and therefore they are evil and bad. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal and if I had to guess, 99.99999% of the population would have happily accepted those same fees given the chance. It's a disingenuous and weak argument. I call it playing the demonization card, similar to playing the race card. "Ermagawd, you accepted money to talk? You evil, money grubbing capitalist, how can you possibly think you are qualified to run this country?

Ahem:

 

[Pillo-san]

I'm still waiting for them...

haha, they will eventually come. After all money in this world seems to be more holy/important than lives.

And a big No to what I wrote, that makes me kinda sad. To me it just make sense.

edit: ah, you dont mind/care any more.. hehe

 

[Blood Eagle]

About the guns, do you need different license for different vehicles? Sure you do. Can you drive a tank with a normal license in town? Hmm I guess not, so why should a military grade weapon (assault rifle) be allowed for citizen that have not proper education as a soldier? Do you see my point? A hunting rifle or a revolver/pistol is not enough for self defence?
As a normal serving Soldier I stand by that a civilian should not be allowed to carry/own a assault weapon if he/she is not properly trained as a real soldier or as a (home defence) personnel. Are you allowed to drive a tank with your car license or fly a fighting jet if you have certificate for a simple air plane like cessna or the more advance Boeing 747?

Military grade assault rifles are illegal for civilian usage, ones that have similar looks to military grade assault rifles are legal. Don't confuse the two. You can legally purchase a military grade assault rifle if you pay an excise tax to the government but the gun cannot be newer than 1986. These weapons fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and also are extremely expensive like upwards of $20,000 US Dollars. They are mostly for wealthy, private collectors or used in movies. Heavily regulated by the Federal Government and also not transferable to family members upon the death of the owner. The US Constitution maintains the right for an individual to bear arms but the right to bear arms is a natural right which means that the 2nd Amendment protects the right but granted no new rights. Your license argument is an old tired one. In the US there is no Constitutional Amendment that guarantees you the right to operate a vehicle. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[ryzno]

haha, they will eventually come. After all money in this world seems to be more holy/important than lives.

And a big No to what I wrote, that makes me kinda sad. To me it just make sense.

edit: ah, you dont mind/care any more.. hehe

No I miss understood you. But I get your point about cars and weapons and somewhat agree.

 

[Pillo-san]

Hehe I thought you just went: -Meeeh I just don want to participate in this discussion. hehe.

 

[Famine]

but the thing is, what i want to convey is that Socialist countries as you call us are not freedom stealers as the Elite in Usa want you to think.

I am not from the USA, nor do I live there.

I'm also capable of reasoning things for myself.

People are people and we are based on a capitalistic system but with higher taxation just to provide basic needs that humans need. Good health is a human right not a privilege.

Nothing can be a right if it requires other people's labours to provide it for you.

About the guns, do you need different license for different vehicles? Sure you do. Can you drive a tank with a normal license in town? Hmm I guess not

Actually I can. My standard driving licence allows me to drive some kinds of tracked vehicles on the public roads. I've never done a test for them.

so why should a military grade weapon (assault rifle) be allowed for citizen that have not proper education as a soldier? Do you see my point? A hunting rifle or a revolver/pistol is not enough for self defence?

What if you need to defend yourself from soldiers?

That is, after all, the purpose of the USA's Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights exists to prevent government from violating the rights of the population. A civilian militia prevents the government from using armed force to violate the rights of the population.

Like you said before, there is difference for necessity and desire especially in this case. It has nothing to do with freedom

Then why did you bring it up as a point in a discussion of freedom?

What strain on freedom? You are less free that I am. Just walk/drive around aimlessly in states and you will know how free you are. Can you just go out with your gear and camp where ever you please in the nature? Can you be away from work if you have a kid? Can you go to a University/collage for free? Do your kid have free meals in school? OK I admit, you can have a fully automatic military grade rifle that fire 30rounds/1.5 sec. But hey do you really need that kind of freedom? A regular hunting rifle or a simple pistol at home is not enough? Do not talk about freedom when you do not know anything about it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Pillo-san Once again, as me and others have told you prior you are wrong on your gun knowledge and you continue to ignore it, why?

 

[Pillo-san]

Those points about freedom and stuff are pointed towards those in especially in USA, and when I said that having a assault weapons was kinda unnecessary freedom is because a weapon kills, just having a normal semi automatic gun that does not shoot 20-30 rounds/mag in 1.5 sec at over 900m/sec is totally overkill and excessive for a civilian. One bullet is enough to kill. To be honest I am not that familiar with British laws but I am confident that they are very similar to laws in Scandinavia. But I do know that you can drive a tank with your license, I do have Older British born friends.

@ LMSCorvetteGT2
It is not that important if the riffle shoots 20 or 30 bullets/1.5 sec. The fact is that those guns are overkill for civilian citizens when a normal gun or a simple hunting rifle should do.

How often do we get to read about well known gun advocates that shout about that gun laws are important and such and then next day they get shot by accident by their own kids or the kids shoot themselves/their brothers/sisters. That is not what we are supposed to discuss here but you get mine point I guess. Owning a gun does not equal as freedom.

 

[Famine]

Those points about freedom and stuff are pointed towards those in especially in USA, and when I said that having a assault weapons was kinda unnecessary freedom

And again, who are you to decide what limits should be on other people's freedoms?

is because a weapon kills

As do plenty of other things. And?

just having a normal semi automatic gun that does not shoot 20-30 rounds/mag in 1.5 sec at over 900m/sec is totally overkill and excessive for a civilian.

So who is it completely fine for then?

One bullet is enough to kill

To someone trained. Ordinary civilians may need a few more attempts.

Nevertheless are you arguing that a simple gun is okay for a civilian to do all the killing they need to or are you arguing against civilians having guns at all? You seem a little all over the place.

You also didn't answer the question about what happens when civilians need to defend themselves from heavily armed soldiers?

 

[mustafur]

And again, who are you to decide what limits should be on other people's freedoms?As do plenty of other things. And?So who is it completely fine for then?To someone trained. Ordinary civilians may need a few more attempts.

Nevertheless are you arguing that a simple gun is okay for a civilian to do all the killing they need to or are you arguing against civilians having guns at all? You seem a little all over the place.

You also didn't answer the question about what happens when civilians need to defend themselves from heavily armed soldiers?

To be fair Hallow tip Bullets can make it a 1 shot kill, but I get
your point.

The biggest problem I have with Bernie I have comes from his definition of rights, im not that opposed to ''Free'' Healthcare and ''Free'' Collage but you can't claim it as a right, you can't claim a right to someones service otherwise that is slavery.

The main reason I will support him over anyone left in the race is he understands the most import issue facing America which is corporate money flooding policy decisions, But Rand Paul would of been my preferred choice as he gets that as well as the economic message which is closer to my views.

 

[squadops]

What word do you think you're using every time you say the word "freedom"?

fo free of course

language

 

[Pillo-san]

I am against guns overall, but if people wants a hand gun for self defence so be it,if it handled with care and kept safely. but I do not see the need for automatic guns that are similar to what military use.

And I am against killing at all, I have learned to take out the target like shooting them in non fatal places.

In a relative peaceful country like Usa, do you even need a gun like that to protect yourself from real armed soldiers. To bad but even with same guns as military a civilian will be taken out before he even notices that he is in a battle I can promise you that. there is no comparison to a pro soldier so politician like Trump should stop saying, stuff like: If somebody had a gun than this may have been prevented. No way, the Civilian would freeze up in a situation like that and do nothing but maybe even cause more damage.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Those points about freedom and stuff are pointed towards those in especially in USA, and when I said that having a assault weapons was kinda unnecessary freedom is because a weapon kills, just having a normal semi automatic gun that does not shoot 20-30 rounds/mag in 1.5 sec at over 900m/sec is totally overkill and excessive for a civilian. One bullet is enough to kill. To be honest I am not that familiar with British laws but I am confident that they are very similar to laws in Scandinavia. But I do now that you can drive a tank with your license, I do have Older British born friends.

@ LMSCorvetteGT2
It is not that important if the riffle shoots 20 or 30 bullets/1.5 sec. The fact is that those guns are overkill for civilian citizens when a normal gun or a simple hunting rifle should do.

How often do we get to read about well known gun advocates that shout about that gun laws are important and such and then next day they get shot by accidents by their own kids or the kids shoot themselves/their brothers/sisters. That is not what we are supposed to discuss here but you get mine point I guess. Owning a gun does not equal as freedom.

Who decides what is overkill for Civilian usage? It's a matter of opinion and is constantly debated. There are more guns than people in the US. Statistically, the states with the strictest laws are the ones that have the most firearm violence. It's because laws will only be followed by good-natured people who will abide by the rule of law. These are not people committing violence by firearm. Regulations don't work at the end of the day. I've heard a lot of people's take on firearms and some on this forum probably think the US is the wild west. It is not and the people who live here do not walk around in constant fear of being shot. The number of guns that the government knows about far surpasses any other country. The rate of firearm death is pretty low if you consider that. You keep saying that good health is a human right, but you are ignoring that personal protection is as well. You can't be selective about which freedoms are important and ignore others or else it makes you look hypocritical.

 

[mustafur]

The only Issue I have with Guns in America is the lack of background checks, atleast do that for your citizens safety but self defense is more then enough reason to have one.

 

[Tornado]

but I do not see the need for automatic guns that are similar to what military use.

Which for, like, the fifth time, are for all intents and purposes not legal in the United States.