US school shooting revives gun debate

Dec 14, 2012 Full story: Yahoo! 2,340

Relatives of those killed in past mass shootings reacted with outrage to Friday's news of another massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Full Story

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1892 Jan 31, 2013
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
What does it take for you liberals to figure it out that your stupid idea of taking guns from the law abiding citizens doesn't work???
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?

If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.
U R fn super troll

Horseshoe Bend, AR

#1893 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
In a sea of hundreds of millions of guns.
How like a gun gnutter who cannot see how it would be worse without gun control laws.
It is illegal (more or less, putting aside extensive federal control) to own machine guns in the USA.
How many people died last year in the USA by machine gun?
Looks like you should be barefoot and are getting rode backback by all those gay liberal faggot friends.
You don't have a life do you ?
averaging just under 70 posts a day ,its clear that you are not Gainfully employed, so the name barefoot fits you nicely , and another topics super troll that doesn't have much to say , maybe try to STFU
U R fn super troll

Horseshoe Bend, AR

#1894 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.
What a dirt bag sh!t head you are , thousands of women dying? from what ?
Show us where you get your information , so you are allowed to use a computer while incarcerated as criminally insane.
Those kids weren't shot with an assault rifle, but don't let any FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1896 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Crappy presidents make lots of them.
Reagan made more mistakes than most.
LOL... He was one of the greatest presidents we have had. I guess you hated him because he stood for American values, individual liberties, and personal responsibility with less government involvement… But socialists in general hate American values.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1897 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.
Or they would be cut to slices with china shards... You're really not a very thoughtful person are you?
sociopathic Liberals

Chico, CA

#1898 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how I was able to point it out to you.
The only point that you've got? Is the one one your empty and lying head!
sociopathic Liberals

Chico, CA

#1899 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing gun control, you can't even control your emotions. Just look at all those exclaimation marks.
It's my belief that anyone incapable of discussing the gun safety issue who can't control themselves from calling people names and slamming their keyboards are more of the subject variety rather than the particiapant of this discussion.
Have a Snickers bar.
Good try, but your spin? it does not work! And neither do your alinksy style #5 attacks. Subtle as they may be? They are still the stupid liberal tactic when losing the debate!
sociopathic Liberals

Chico, CA

#1900 Jan 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or they would be cut to slices with china shards... You're really not a very thoughtful person are you?
Liberals do not think... they react! 99.999% of the time 'stupidly' too!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1901 Jan 31, 2013
sociopathic Liberals wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals do not think... they react! 99.999% of the time 'stupidly' too!
Agreed… It’s because they are motivated by emotions and it prevents them from thinking rationally.

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1903 Jan 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.
I have found a pattern used by these "cold dead hands" people ... when it comes down to a face off, they usually lay down their gun as soon as they release the child they're using for shielding.

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1905 Jan 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL... He was one of the greatest presidents we have had. I guess you hated him because he stood for American values, individual liberties, and personal responsibility with less government involvement… But socialists in general hate American values.
American values? Ronald Reagan was supporting Osama bin Laden with funds and weapons funneled to Al Queda thru Pakistan to fight the Russians.

Less government? Government grew by 300,000 people during his Presidency and he raised taxes 11 times.

hahahahahahaha

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1907 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s begin with the (modest) successes of this era. In 1981, the president signed into law significant cuts in government spending and tax rates. Reagan’s “historic” turnaround cut the projected spending of the federal government by 4.7 percent for the next fiscal year. Taking inflation into account, the Reagan cuts amounted to 5 percent of the total cost of government. Overall, discretionary domestic spending dropped about 14.2 percent during Reagan’s first year. Several Great Society programs were sharply cut. The Community Development Block Grant program, for example, lost two-thirds of its funding. Reagan also won a 32 percent cut in mass transit spending.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici was correct to call the 1981 budget “the most dramatic reduction in the ongoing programs in the history of the country”— but mostly because federal spending had risen relentlessly for three decades both absolutely and relative to the nation’s wealth. Had that trend continued, the federal government would have grown relative to national income by about 25 percent (from one-fifth of GDP to one-fourth). Instead of increasing, the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s. Reagan thus shrank the size of government compared to what it would have been if past trends had continued.

Reagan also reduced tax rates. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was expected to return $749 billion to taxpayers over the next five years. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress voted for it, and Gallup found that the public approved the tax cut by two to one. Here again Reagan succeeded relative to a worse outcome. The last Carter budget foresaw steady increases in revenue, culminating in taxes taking 24 percent of GNP in 1986. The average federal tax burden from 1961 to 1980 was about 19 percent of GNP. In 1981, the Reagan administration predicted federal taxes would take just over 19 percent of GDP by 1984. In that sense, Reagan’s tax cuts returned the nation to normal. Without the cuts, however, we would have paid unprecedented taxes.

The tax reform of 1986 stands as the major, and perhaps only, achievement in limiting government in Reagan’s second term. That law lowered rates and eliminated many tax preferences or “loopholes.” Congress often says to a taxpayer: if you do something we want you to do (say, invest in “green technology”), we will grant you a partial dispensation from taxation. Such tax preferences represent a kind of political control through offers rather than threats. True, such tax breaks might seem like a tax cut, at least to those who receive them. But tax preferences do not reduce the power of government in general. Others must pay higher taxes unless spending elsewhere is cut just as much as the tax preference, and tax preferences have no relation to spending cuts. Hence, the amount of coercion remains the same.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1908 Jan 31, 2013
Eliminating tax preferences — known as tax reform — faced serious opposition. Beneficiaries had reason to organize and defend their preferences. Only presidential leadership could give reform a chance. Some Democrats found preferences unfair and favored reform. Republicans were skeptical. They thought the Democrats saw in reform a chance to raise taxes on business. Ronald Reagan saw that reform might reduce government intervention in the economy and further lower tax rates. He convinced the Republicans to support reform against their political instincts and voting histories. As a result of the 1981 and 1986 laws, Reagan obtained lower tax rates for most people. When Reagan took office, the federal marginal rate on income was 70 percent. After the 1986 reform, the marginal rate was 28 percent. What accounts for these achievements against the grain of history? Reagan’s political judgment and popularity mattered. But larger forces helped him. Reagan’s victory followed a decade of crisis for the New Deal political order. The old way of governing had promised to end risk, increase wealth, and assure justice.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1909 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
American values? Ronald Reagan was supporting Osama bin Laden with funds and weapons funneled to Al Queda thru Pakistan to fight the Russians.
Less government? Government grew by 300,000 people during his Presidency and he raised taxes 11 times.
hahahahahahaha
Let’s begin with the (modest) successes of this era. In 1981, the president signed into law significant cuts in government spending and tax rates. Reagan’s “historic” turnaround cut the projected spending of the federal government by 4.7 percent for the next fiscal year. Taking inflation into account, the Reagan cuts amounted to 5 percent of the total cost of government. Overall, discretionary domestic spending dropped about 14.2 percent during Reagan’s first year. Several Great Society programs were sharply cut. The Community Development Block Grant program, for example, lost two-thirds of its funding. Reagan also won a 32 percent cut in mass transit spending.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici was correct to call the 1981 budget “the most dramatic reduction in the ongoing programs in the history of the country”— but mostly because federal spending had risen relentlessly for three decades both absolutely and relative to the nation’s wealth. Had that trend continued, the federal government would have grown relative to national income by about 25 percent (from one-fifth of GDP to one-fourth). Instead of increasing, the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s. Reagan thus shrank the size of government compared to what it would have been if past trends had continued.

Reagan also reduced tax rates. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was expected to return $749 billion to taxpayers over the next five years. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress voted for it, and Gallup found that the public approved the tax cut by two to one. Here again Reagan succeeded relative to a worse outcome. The last Carter budget foresaw steady increases in revenue, culminating in taxes taking 24 percent of GNP in 1986. The average federal tax burden from 1961 to 1980 was about 19 percent of GNP. In 1981, the Reagan administration predicted federal taxes would take just over 19 percent of GDP by 1984. In that sense, Reagan’s tax cuts returned the nation to normal. Without the cuts, however, we would have paid unprecedented taxes.

The tax reform of 1986 stands as the major, and perhaps only, achievement in limiting government in Reagan’s second term. That law lowered rates and eliminated many tax preferences or “loopholes.” Congress often says to a taxpayer: if you do something we want you to do (say, invest in “green technology”), we will grant you a partial dispensation from taxation. Such tax preferences represent a kind of political control through offers rather than threats. True, such tax breaks might seem like a tax cut, at least to those who receive them. But tax preferences do not reduce the power of government in general. Others must pay higher taxes unless spending elsewhere is cut just as much as the tax preference, and tax preferences have no relation to spending cuts. Hence, the amount of coercion remains the same.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1910 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
American values? Ronald Reagan was supporting Osama bin Laden with funds and weapons funneled to Al Queda thru Pakistan to fight the Russians.
Less government? Government grew by 300,000 people during his Presidency and he raised taxes 11 times.
hahahahahahaha
Eliminating tax preferences — known as tax reform — faced serious opposition. Beneficiaries had reason to organize and defend their preferences. Only presidential leadership could give reform a chance. Some Democrats found preferences unfair and favored reform. Republicans were skeptical. They thought the Democrats saw in reform a chance to raise taxes on business. Ronald Reagan saw that reform might reduce government intervention in the economy and further lower tax rates. He convinced the Republicans to support reform against their political instincts and voting histories. As a result of the 1981 and 1986 laws, Reagan obtained lower tax rates for most people. When Reagan took office, the federal marginal rate on income was 70 percent. After the 1986 reform, the marginal rate was 28 percent. What accounts for these achievements against the grain of history? Reagan’s political judgment and popularity mattered. But larger forces helped him. Reagan’s victory followed a decade of crisis for the New Deal political order. The old way of governing had promised to end risk, increase wealth, and assure justice.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1911 Jan 31, 2013
TOPIX is freaking out

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1912 Jan 31, 2013
John Samples

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#1913 Jan 31, 2013
Realistically speaking, the biggest thing gun addicts have to graon about at this time is that there is a very real probablitiy that you are going to have to register yourself and every weapon you own. You will then likley to be subjected to random checks for menatl stability and staus of your weapons.

You aren't going to like it, but you might as well to accept that right now and begin getting over it.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1914 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
Realistically speaking, the biggest thing gun addicts have to graon about at this time is that there is a very real probablitiy that you are going to have to register yourself and every weapon you own. You will then likley to be subjected to random checks for menatl stability and staus of your weapons.
You aren't going to like it, but you might as well to accept that right now and begin getting over it.
You don't get it do you... It's not about guns it about rights.
But you want to impose your ideals on others so you don't care about rights. right?
sociopathic Liberals

Chico, CA

#1916 Jan 31, 2013
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
Realistically speaking, the biggest thing gun addicts have to graon about at this time is that there is a very real probablitiy that you are going to have to register yourself and every weapon you own. You will then likley to be subjected to random checks for menatl stability and staus of your weapons.
You aren't going to like it, but you might as well to accept that right now and begin getting over it.
So I take it that, that is why you have no guns?
Because liberalism? It is a serious mental disorder.
==========
On the Madness of Modern Liberalism:
The egalitarianism and welfarism of modern liberal government are incompatible with the facts of human nature and the human condition. But the rise to power of the liberal agenda has resulted from the fact that the people of western societies have irrationally demanded that governments take care of them and manage their lives instead of protecting their property rights. This misconception results in massive violations of those rights while permitting government officials to act out their own and their constituents’ psychopathology. The liberal agenda gratifies various types of pathological dependency; augments primitive feelings of envy and inferiority; reinforces paranoid perceptions of victimization; implements manic delusions of grandeur; exploits government authority for power, domination and revenge; and satisfies infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation.
Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D.
http://www.libertymind.com/index.php...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min Terra Firma 3,301
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr Go Blue Forever 12,540
Denver Dispatch'Awesome' Michelle Obama Thrills... 2 hr disgruntled reader 1
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Wed sss 4,216
Old evidence at new trial (May '06) Wed Dad 1,110
Review: Amerimax Windows (Jul '10) Wed Jon 33
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Tue Tooth Fairy 80
•••
•••

Denver Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••