Summations Only

Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

"375 million Americans?" "375"? You probably got that made-up statistic from the same place as your imaginary Norwegian statistic.

You glossed over the fact that you were also wrong about violent crime statistics in Europe (particularly Norway).

Direct me to your supposed post that shows Norway has a higher violent crime rate than the USA.Whenever you're ready.

You wouldn't dare use Norway's stats.

Unless you are referring to 'relief from living,' and 'aid to the Grim Reaper,' it seems you are not acquainted with america's body of work.

At a time when america wants to keep the mentally ill from acquiring guns, NY state's governor A. Cuomo's proposed budget could lead to MORE mentally ill people on the street. With hundreds of MILLIONS of guns available in america, what could possibly go wrong?I said it before, let's reduce military spending 99%, and use the money for education and health care. Let's make america a country that is worth protecting to begin with.

quote:

---

ALBANY, N.Y. ” Buried in New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed budget is a cost-cutting measure that would empower the state and health insurance companies to deny low-income mental patients the specific brand-name anti-psychotic drugs their doctors prescribe, in favor of less expensive versions.

​

Some care providers worry that some of those patients could be dangerous without an effective drug or if they stop taking it.

​

The measure would save $9 million in state funds.

​

It follows another cost-cutting attempt from last year's budget in which some female Medicaid patients were told they had to switch from their preferred brand of contraceptive to lower-cost options unless the cheaper measures failed, resulting in pregnancy, bleeding or nausea.

---

Cuomo budget limits choice of anti-psychotic drugs
We can’t find the page you are looking for.

But is that not the mantra of gun owners? Also, if you consider some close calls and serious consideration of limited nuclear weapons by US presidents, maybe we've just been lucky? Preparing, researching, funding for mass destruction should never be considered rational . . .

quote:

---

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

---

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Agreed, but I only meant that gun owners think their guns are a guaranteed deterrent to prevent violent acts upon themselves. It reality, gun ownership doesn't guarantee their safety, just like nuclear weapons didn't prevent 9/11. Have you that short a memory Rahvin? Nuclear weapons didn't stop the 9/11 terrorists or Hamas from lobbing missiles into Israel or Al Qaeda from attacking London's subway. Vast amounts of nuclear weapons will continue to be completely impotent against suicidal attacks. Again, can this just be luck, and if so, do you want to keep playing russian roulette?Again, here is a typical US leader with his finger on 'the button.' Since Obama's foreign polices have not changed from Bush Jr.'s, I should think you would be terrified to sleep nights . . . I just got back from India. There was crushing poverty, disease, and pollution in the major cities. The people didn't even have the dignity of defecating in private. If you'll allow me to speak for them, I think they would rather have clean water, safe food, shelter and clothing than space propulsion. Okay, I'll never use the word 'never' again. See my India example above, and re-read the Eisenhower quote. Do you think this sounds like defeatist-talk? Also, I never have argued to reduce the military 100%. But really Rahvin, don't you believe we can do so much better than just accept the status quo. Where's your "fight the good fight" spirit? Agreed. However, the US endangers the progression to a nuclear-free world when they keep doing nuclear testing. Especially unhelpful is the hypocrisy when the US tells Iran they cannot have any nuclear weapons while turning a blind eye towards India and Israel.

quote:

---

Nevada National Security Site had successfully detonated plutonium in a deep shaft on Wednesday (Dec. 5) to test the safety and effectiveness of US nuclear weapons.
U.S. Continues Nuclear Tests; Draws Condemnation From Iran ... and Bombed Japanese Cities - Activist Post

---

At the least, I think your word 'moderate' should be replaced with 'extremely small.' Didn't stop 9/11. And really Rahvin, just what nation in your imagination is going to invade the US? A beautiful wish.Edited by dronester, : My inline photos keep disappearing. Added new ones. (grrr)

It seems you are irritated that I contested your individual points? If I skipped your individual points would you then be criticizing me for ignoring your individual points? Errr, . . . I don't think I contested that. Though I did question the quantity you think is needed. In light of mankind's other pressing problems in the world, would you like to re-address the issue of quantity? By asking this it seems you are ok with terrorists causing destruction to a nation as long as they don't invade. I'll ask again, in your imagination, which nation wants to invade the US?I'll wait. That is supposition. I'll equally maintain Bush Jr. is a mildly mentally retarded former coke-user with no empathetic awareness whatsoever. I would assert that Bush didn't invade North Korea because there was no oil there. No argument here, I stated this many times: The lesson learned from the Iraq war is that EVERYBODY should acquire nuclear weapons to defend against US hegemony. The gun proponents use a similar argument when acquiring their vast stashes of weapons too. Is the end result good? Actually, the Bush/monkey photo was used to 'nuke' your erroneous notion that "we can reasonably count on heads of state to comprehend the consequences of military action."In addition, on an inner level, it surrrrrre felt good.A win-win scenario for me, eh? Sadly, you've somehow accepted that the world absolutely MUST be this way. Americans MUST continue voting for leaders who violate treaties and international law. Everybody then MUST acquire nuclear weapons for defense. Gun owners MUST see terror and threats on every corner. Gun owners MUST buy MORE guns.Sigh.Rahvin, please re-read my post. Is there any possibility it was written in the hope to show there ARE other options, and a bigger picture to consider?

Sounds like a Seinfeld saying: Close talker
Double-dipper
High talker
re-gifter
Low talker
Bad breaker-upper Evidence denierErr, sorry about the interruption, . . . carry-on.List of Seinfeld sayings | WikiSein | Fandom

I wish advocates of the 2nd Amendment would be as enthusiastic about the 4th Amendment against search and seizure (NSA domestic spying); 5th Amendment guaranteeing due process; 8th Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment (Manning Episode), 6th Amendment, assuring trial by jury (drone assassination program).But, like the cartoon implies, the rights and liberties gun owners use to support gun ownership and play with guns seem be just an empty facade.

Department of Agriculture? Don't even get me started. Damn fascist-scurvy-dogs, . . . the whole bunch of 'em!

(Sorry about the off-topic post)Funny, speaking of myths and re-imagining history, I just read an article this morn about the true story of Bunker Hill. Interesting . . .The True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill
The True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill | History| Smithsonian MagazineAlso, "Misremembering America’s Wars, 2003-2053" is about how america's Department of Defense is whitewashing america's history by creating a "public service" website commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War.Zcomm » Misremembering America’s Wars, 2003-2053 The 1%ers are winning. 99%ers don't have a clue.