So why would the middle class shrink? Regardless of the reason, that's what the post I was replying to was about.
It seems the GDP got bigger. Explain this to me again in small words. Cuz it looks to me like the rich are getting richer from the middle class.
if you define rich as being someone who makes more than he has to spend, of course he will get richer if he invests some of the money left over.
so you want the rich to become poorer? your existence is not a just claim on my wealth. every year I get richer because I don't spend near as much as I make and I invest that left over. so every 9-11 or so years I am doubling my wealth. Does that bother you? the poor stay poor mainly because of programs designed to keep them dependent on government and voting for Democrats.
No, I want us to become wealthy together. I made no claim to your wealth. The poor stay poor mainly because the 1%'s programs are designed to return most of the wealth to the already wealthy. This does not address the plight of the middle class, which is the subject of my original post. Their labor is indeed a just claim on your wealth, as that wealth would not be available without them. The people remain poor mostly because the rich desire to become richer, disregarding the social cost.[/quote][/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Becoming wealthy is the result of what an individual does and does not do. A poor person doesn't get wealthy by tripping over a chair. He/she goes to school, get a good job, plans properly and more.
There's always that. But I know many people that succeeded all on their own... actually most people I know fit that description.
why would democrat politicians want to protect black on black crime, and sanctuary cities that use guns, and drug cartels that use guns, all why trying to get rid of innocent by standards guns? It makes no sense, if they were for Americans, and wanted us to be able to protect ourselves? Besides, they keep defunding the police. But if police are supposedly so bad, then why owe why wouldn't they want regular people to be able to protect themselves from them? lol.
It's the right that wants everyone to have access to guns, not the left. First, no one is 'getting rid' of innocent bystanders' guns. No one is talking about taking the guns you already own. Second, referring back to the point above, arming innocent bystanders means arming potential and actual criminals as well. It wnd crininals.ould seem the GOP are the ones who are in favor of armed cartels a Let's make an analogy here. Certain cars are not street legal. The reason for this usually has to do with safety for both the driver and others on the road. It's not about wanting people to drive or not, it's about keeping them safe. Last I heard the GOP were the ones calling for defunding the FBI over the Mar-a=Lardo document seizure.
This is false. No one on the right wants this. This is false. Everyone who supports fed flag laws is talking about taking the guns I already own. So is Beto. That's why he keeps losing elections. The criminals are already armed. Your analogy fails as there is no right to use a car on the street. Further: "All bearable arms".
While I'll be open to being proved wrong, wasn't it the right that opposed background checks for gun sales at flea markets? No one on the right wants the RESULT of their policies, but here we are. So you think convicts should have guns? I refer you to your earlier point. Less well if automatic rifles and machine pistols are banned. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not the sum total of all our rights. I refer you to the 9th Amendment. Again, I would not deny your right to guns. Reasonable regulation is a necessary corollary.
Your post is a little hashed, but I'll play. What personal info do you object to? Convictions for felonies? But it seems you think the right to bear arms is a qualified right. We're just talking about the qualifications then, right? An essential ban is not a complete ban. I know that most weapons with the AKMS action, for instance, can be converted to full auto with access to the proper tools. But should we limit the magazine size to 3 shells, it changes nothing in terms of self defense and limits possible havoc.
Info like VA info about possible PTSD .... "Shall not be infringed" is exactly the opposite of "qualified". The "conversion" you speak of is illegal.
So we're really talking about a right that can be regulated. Or do you think that every person should be permitted to on firearms? I remind you of your prior post.
"Universal" background checks are neither effective nor enforceable. Why should anyone support such a law? They are prohibited by law, yet seem to have no problem getting them. You'd have to restrict access by law abiding citizens to a point well past infringement to prevent or even signficantly reducing criminal access to guns. Their top three sources - straw purchases, the black market and theft - are already illegal. These have been heavily regulated since 1934. As long as "reasonable" includes "Constitutional, effective and enforceable". I don't think you'll find many people signing up for three round limits for magazines.
There are limits to what regulations can be imposed, hence DC v Heller, Chicago v McDonald, Caetano v Massachusetts and NYR&PA v Bruen.
Even if this is true, it does not prove the right wants everyone to have access to guns This does not in any way address my point that there are people who DO want to take my guns, contrary to your claim. "Automatic rifles and machine pistols" Tell me you don't know anything about guns without telling me you don't know anything about firearms. Fact remains: Criminals are already armed. This negates your claim that "arming innocent bystanders means arming potential and actual criminals as well." Irrelevant to what I said - and thus, what I said stands. There is nothing "reasonable" about unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. Similarly, there is nothing "reasonable" about restrictions to the exercise of a right protected by he constitution.
No. There is -no- "qualification" to the eight to keep and bear arms. The protection afforded to the exercise of right to keep and bear arms is "qualified" in that: -You must be part of "the people" -The "arms" in question are "bearable arms" -The use of said "arms" does not violate the rights of others. The 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use "all bearable arms" Thus, a ban on any "bearable arm" violates the constitution. The 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from arbitrary and capricious restrictions such as this.
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command
