Liberals: Purchase a Gun or pay a "Homeland Security Penalty"

It existed long before Obamacare. Republicans created it in 1993 (The Heritage Foundation, no less) and tried to get it passed up until 2009, when the Dems got involved.

Even Romney passed THE EXACT SAME THING in Massachusetts.

 

That's not true. In fact, I'd argue that any liberal who supports it is a hypocrite.

 

Don't you want to call out the obvious homophobic comments? You guys like to do that when Republicans say something bad about gays. Here's your chance to prove your consistency.

 

Hey, i have to reply to this.

What is a Tv worth? not much. If some idiot criminal wants it that bad and during this fantasy brewksi created of 3am nonsense. This idiot criminal can have it. I go back to bed and call the police in the morning.

What i can't understand is chatters on this forum, risking their life for a TV. Are they that poor? Can't they replace it. Is the message. They live in dirt poor slums and have to defend their gadgets with their life.

What a bunch of losers.

 

How so? How can a liberal, who is pleased with the Government's new ability to tax people for not buying something, not be happy with the Government's ability to tax people for not buying something else? The only discernible difference I see is that liberals support it when it's something they like (health care), and don't support it when it's something they don't like (guns).

 

It's a Constitutionally sound argument, according to the Supreme Court and Democrats. The militia needs to be armed, too. Why would anyone oppose it? Switzerland is the same way!

 

Nonsense. You have to pay for police and military protection. Why should I be forced to subsidize your self-defense? Protect yourself, coward!

 

I liked your post because anyone attacking liberals makes me happy. But it's a horrible idea. We need to abolish the Department of Homeland Security. It's a worthless, useless organization that doesn't protect against terrorism.

 

I misread your post. I thought you meant Obamacare itself.

 

If you have a some method of protecting your property, it is the criminal who is risking his life for that TV. If you don't, you are risking your life for anything you have that a criminal may want.

 

You're assuming I'm just going for a tv. Maybe I also want your jewelry,the pills in your cabinet or something much sinister,your wife,sister,or daughter. You can't expect noble reasons or actions from someone coming into your house. They don't have your best interest at heart.

 

Not sure if this is satire or a serious proposal.

 

Just out of curiosity -- would it have to be a gun? Would a crossbow suffice? Or if you had a couple of certificates claiming you were a black belt?

 

To answer for SiliconMagician as a plutocrat, if the Karate industry, gun industry and crossbow industry offer political contributions, you can get a waiver for alternative forms of defense.

 

I think you should be consistent in your claim to an unfringed right to keep and bear Arms, simply because you claim such a right exists for persons regardless of whether or not they are part of a well regulated militia of the People who keep and bear Arms, or the security needs of a free State.

 

You're not paying a penalty, you're just paying a tax, remember! Yeah the mandate is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and this sets precedence for things exactly like what you have proposed here. How long until we're controlled by taxes? I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate people.

 

I'd say for any real national and person defense you need a ranged weapon. Maybe close quarters combat techniques could give you a subsidy provided you already have a ranged weapon. Crossbow should work though!

 

I'm staying out of it; i don't get involved when people make it personal like that. sorry.

 

Yeah, I have no idea what your point is, if you even have one.

 

Big shock. Liberals can't call out other liberals when they engage in racism, homophobia, or any of the other big "no-no's".

 

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

I'm "ceding" nothing. Your posts are very vague and not clear. I've mentioned this several times. Maybe you should explain what you're getting at or stop wasting time and bandwidth.

 

I thought you actually believed in "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" regardless of the security needs of a free State?

 

And?

10char

 

An armed intruder in his HOUSE? Most DA's won't even bother to take it to a grand jury.