|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2018 15:13:18 GMT
The same time guns will be outlawed in Finland, which will be never--Finland had 2 school shootings in 2008 and 2009, 8 people killed in each shooting(both shooters were bullied)--Germany, which has gun control, had 2 school massacres in 2002 and 2009, in which 16 people were killed in each one--Scotland has gun control, but that didn't stop a shooter from killing 16 little 4 year old children--Canada has gun control but that didn't stop the Montreal Massacre at that school where 14 women students were killed--or the recent Quebec shooting where that white guy killed all those Muslims in a mosque--France had the Nanterre massacre where 9 people were shot dead in 2002--Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws like the US, had the Zug massacre in 2002 where 14 people were shot dead--Japan, which has strict gun control laws, 8 people were shot to death in 2001 shooting--and the strict gun laws in Japan didn't prevent that massacre last year, the guy stabbing 40 old people in one night, 20 of them fatally You were only able to mention 1-2 shooting incidents for each of those countries you mentioned, with the incidents spread over a number of years. In comparison, the US has already had 18 public shootings in 2018, and it's only February. That's more than all of the examples you mentioned combined.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 15, 2018 15:44:03 GMT
The same time guns will be outlawed in Finland, which will be never--Finland had 2 school shootings in 2008 and 2009, 8 people killed in each shooting(both shooters were bullied)--Germany, which has gun control, had 2 school massacres in 2002 and 2009, in which 16 people were killed in each one--Scotland has gun control, but that didn't stop a shooter from killing 16 little 4 year old children--Canada has gun control but that didn't stop the Montreal Massacre at that school where 14 women students were killed--or the recent Quebec shooting where that white guy killed all those Muslims in a mosque--France had the Nanterre massacre where 9 people were shot dead in 2002--Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws like the US, had the Zug massacre in 2002 where 14 people were shot dead--Japan, which has strict gun control laws, 8 people were shot to death in 2001 shooting--and the strict gun laws in Japan didn't prevent that massacre last year, the guy stabbing 40 old people in one night, 20 of them fatally Dude, all the crimes you mentioned have taken place over a near 20 year period. America could probably match that level of carnage within the last 3 years. Try last 12 months, 3 mass shooting since Jan 2017 has resulted in 103 deaths, jus going off of the mass shootings of 2017-18 as listed on Wikipedia it's 148 ppl killed not including the killers compared that to the 121 killed as a result of all the attacks listed above as you said over a near 20 year period.
Gun control does not eradicate violence or mean people wont be able to use guns but stricter laws make guns less common place which limits people access to them which reduces the likelihood of them significantly.
Also in regard to the Dunblane school massacre in Scottland that happened prior to our stricter gun laws came into effect and was the cause for said gun laws being implemented the following year and then reinforced by the new government later that year, since then we have had 1 other mass shooting incident but still we are talking 2 in 22 years compared to the 18 in America in the last 14 months.
It's not just mass shooting either the US has 4 times the murder rate the UK does, most of the killings are done via guns, and that's nothing to do with the size of the country as the murder rate is based on murders per 100k people, the fact is guns make taking another life and taking multiple lives in quick succession far too easy, and just because something it's a 100% fix doesn't mean it's not an effective path to take, rubbers don't work 100% of the time but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Feb 15, 2018 16:28:04 GMT
Constitutional obstacle: the Supreme Court's Heller decision established private gun ownership as a Constitutional right.
Public obstacle: 11% of Americans support a ban on gun ownership; 86% oppose such a ban.
Electoral obstacle: candidates in favor of stricter gun laws run into trouble. Hillary Clinton called repeatedly for "sensible gun laws" and lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin – all states with avid hunters.
Practical obstacle: how are you going to take guns away from opponents of mandatory gun turn-ins? It might go well in Connecticut but what about in Oklahoma and dozens of other states?
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Feb 15, 2018 21:53:31 GMT
The reason why have the 2nd Amendment is because the founders believed that citizens should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. And if you think that a democratic government going tyrannical is unrealistic, just crack open a history book. There's no such thing as "true" gun control. Someone is always going to have weapons. Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government? Obviously not. The first the the Nazis did before rounding up the Jews in Germany was make sure they couldn't defend themselves. So the debate isn't even really about owning guns. It's about the right to defend yourself. And the reality is that you can't do that without weapons. All that said, I think there is room for debate when discussing if there should be more rules and regulations around what kinds of weapons you can have. But the idea that we can just "ban" guns is foolish. It's neither reasonable nor desirable. Great post. Well said...
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 15, 2018 22:22:02 GMT
News say the gunman used a .223 caliber AR-15. Where the did the kid get a rifle like that? Are guns like these readily available for sale in the US? Yes. And it looks like he got it in gun store. They are saying that the kid has mental issues. Probably so they don't have to blame it on guns.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2018 22:32:52 GMT
News say the gunman used a .223 caliber AR-15. Where the did the kid get a rifle like that? Are guns like these readily available for sale in the US? Yes. And it looks like he got it in gun store. They are saying that the kid has mental issues. Probably so they don't have to blame it on guns. Wow. Didn't know you could just buy assault rifles like that over the counter. Granted, the AR-15 isn't exactly that powerful a rifle and it's not fully automatic, but it's still scary to think that a 19 yr old kid can just go down the store and get one.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 15, 2018 22:55:05 GMT
Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government Seems to work fine for us in the UK.
Ok that's a fair enough point.
I think the thing is gun violence in America or gun culture itself in America is like any other negative cultural issue that needs to be overcome, it doesn't get fixed overnight, but if steps are taken now to restrict access to certain guns for only specific purposes, and the idolisation of gun ownership is undermined then in 10 years the country would likely have far fewer incidents and be in a place where further steps could be taken, it may take a hundred years or more but you know what they say every journey starts with a single step.
Then again I like the idea I think Chris Rock said years ago, fuck banning guns just raise the price of bullets, see how many drive by shooting's occur when every round cost 5 grand, it'd be easier to identify the fuckers planning on a suicidal killing spree when their spending their life savings and signing over the deed to their car or house just for a box of bullets.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 15, 2018 23:19:12 GMT
The same time guns will be outlawed in Finland, which will be never--Finland had 2 school shootings in 2008 and 2009, 8 people killed in each shooting(both shooters were bullied)--Germany, which has gun control, had 2 school massacres in 2002 and 2009, in which 16 people were killed in each one--Scotland has gun control, but that didn't stop a shooter from killing 16 little 4 year old children--Canada has gun control but that didn't stop the Montreal Massacre at that school where 14 women students were killed--or the recent Quebec shooting where that white guy killed all those Muslims in a mosque--France had the Nanterre massacre where 9 people were shot dead in 2002--Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws like the US, had the Zug massacre in 2002 where 14 people were shot dead--Japan, which has strict gun control laws, 8 people were shot to death in 2001 shooting--and the strict gun laws in Japan didn't prevent that massacre last year, the guy stabbing 40 old people in one night, 20 of them fatally How about the bigger picture and not cherry picked events - Gun related homicides per 100,000 people Finland - 0.3 (2010) Germany - 0.12 (2016) UK - 0.07 (2016) Canada - 0.5 (2010) France - 0.2 (2010) Japan - 0.04 (2016) USA - 3.85 (2016) Between 1966-2012 USA had 90 mass shootings - more than the total of the next 4 countries with the highest figures USA - 90 Philippines - 18 Russia - 15 Yemen - 11 France - 10 In 1996! How far back do you want to go? So? Shall we start digging out figures for USA homicides by bladed weapon? Bringing up uncommon events in other countries as a defence for the USA's record of gun related homicides his laughable. As ridiculous as those that say "well because we are allowed to carry guns we can prevent such shootings happening"...how did that help those massacred in Las Vegas last year?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 15, 2018 23:24:29 GMT
Damn 90? USA absolutely has a boner for murder.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Feb 15, 2018 23:33:38 GMT
Yeah apparently in UK there are roughly 50-60 gun homicides per year.
In comparison in the US there were about 8,100 gun homicides in 2014.
That's 135-160 times the amount of gun homicides despite the fact that US only has six times the population.
There were 346 mass shootings in the US in 2017 that's almost one per day. How many mass shootings were there in the UK in 2017? None, not a single one.
Infact there's only been a grand total of 2 mass shootings in the UK in the past 20 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 23:51:54 GMT
Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government Seems to work fine for us in the UK.
Ok that's a fair enough point.
I think the thing is gun violence in America or gun culture itself in America is like any other negative cultural issue that needs to be overcome, it doesn't get fixed overnight, but if steps are taken now to restrict access to certain guns for only specific purposes, and the idolisation of gun ownership is undermined then in 10 years the country would likely have far fewer incidents and be in a place where further steps could be taken, it may take a hundred years or more but you know what they say every journey starts with a single step.
Then again I like the idea I think Chris Rock said years ago, fuck banning guns just raise the price of bullets, see how many drive by shooting's occur when every round cost 5 grand, it'd be easier to identify the fuckers planning on a suicidal killing spree when their spending their life savings and signing over the deed to their car or house just for a box of bullets.
There are a number of reasons why you can't really compare the US to the UK (or any other European country), but I'm not interested in going down that particular rabbit hole. I'll just say that implementing the same laws won't necessarily have the same effect when you're dealing with very different people with very different histories and very different philosophies of government. But a reasonable measure I think we could/should take is to update our background checks. It would require people and government agencies to actually do their jobs though. If you see someone posting suspicious shit on their social media platforms (like this kid was), then you report them to the FBI. From there, the FBI can review their social media platforms and flag them as potentially dangerous (if warranted, as it would have been in this instance). When running a background check, one of the hurdles that needs to be cleared is that the FBI hasn't flagged you as a potential threat. It's a simple idea, but it requires citizens to do the right thing when they see something suspicious, and it requires law enforcement to conduct the proper follow-up. We can't stop every nutjob from shooting a place up. Or getting in a truck and running people over. Or creating a homemade bomb and blowing people up. But we're finding that a lot of these folks aren't keeping their sinister intentions a secret. A lot of them are open about how messed up they are. So I think something like this is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2018 0:05:04 GMT
Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government Seems to work fine for us in the UK.
Ok that's a fair enough point.
I think the thing is gun violence in America or gun culture itself in America is like any other negative cultural issue that needs to be overcome, it doesn't get fixed overnight, but if steps are taken now to restrict access to certain guns for only specific purposes, and the idolisation of gun ownership is undermined then in 10 years the country would likely have far fewer incidents and be in a place where further steps could be taken, it may take a hundred years or more but you know what they say every journey starts with a single step.
Then again I like the idea I think Chris Rock said years ago, fuck banning guns just raise the price of bullets, see how many drive by shooting's occur when every round cost 5 grand, it'd be easier to identify the fuckers planning on a suicidal killing spree when their spending their life savings and signing over the deed to their car or house just for a box of bullets.
I don't think a complete gun ban is possible but even just implementing stricter gun control laws can be extremely helpful. In Canada for example, rifle magazines are limited to a 5 round capacity. More than enough for hunting purposes but limited enough to minimize casualties in case they're ever used for homicides.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Feb 16, 2018 1:30:12 GMT
How many more mass shootings and needless deaths will there need to be before Congress sees sense? When... Bow & Arrows, Spears & Knives, Bombs & Explosives, Flame Throwers, Car Crashes, & Hazardous Chemical Mixtures... can't hurt people too! Banning guns in the USA will just mean that the criminals will have to smuggle them in from another country, or they will just make their own. Or they will just kick the shit out of you, and leave you for dead.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2018 1:42:04 GMT
How many more mass shootings and needless deaths will there need to be before Congress sees sense? When... Bow & Arrows, Spears & Knives, Bombs & Explosives, Flame Throwers, Car Crashes, & Hazardous Chemical Mixtures... can't hurt people too! Banning guns in the USA will just mean that the criminals will have to smuggle them in from another country, or they will just make their own. Or they will just kick the shit out of you, and leave you for dead. Bow & arrows - need a high degree of training to use proficiently and is too slow to achieve mass killings in a short amount of time. Spears - are very hard to conceal and require a high degree of skill and physical fitness to be used as an instrument of mass killing. Knives - necessitates the killer to close in on victims, slowing down the rate at which a killer can harm multiple victims, and are nowhere near as lethal as a gun. Bombs, explosives and flamethrowers - are not as easily purchasable in stores as guns are and are actually quite difficult to get a hold of. Cars - are used in a very practical and helpful purpose in the daily lives of billions of people. Dangerous chemicals - are not as easily utilized as guns and don't kill as fast as guns.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 16, 2018 13:19:51 GMT
Seems to work fine for us in the UK.
Ok that's a fair enough point.
I think the thing is gun violence in America or gun culture itself in America is like any other negative cultural issue that needs to be overcome, it doesn't get fixed overnight, but if steps are taken now to restrict access to certain guns for only specific purposes, and the idolisation of gun ownership is undermined then in 10 years the country would likely have far fewer incidents and be in a place where further steps could be taken, it may take a hundred years or more but you know what they say every journey starts with a single step.
Then again I like the idea I think Chris Rock said years ago, fuck banning guns just raise the price of bullets, see how many drive by shooting's occur when every round cost 5 grand, it'd be easier to identify the fuckers planning on a suicidal killing spree when their spending their life savings and signing over the deed to their car or house just for a box of bullets.
There are a number of reasons why you can't really compare the US to the UK (or any other European country), but I'm not interested in going down that particular rabbit hole. I'll just say that implementing the same laws won't necessarily have the same effect when you're dealing with very different people with very different histories and very different philosophies of government. But a reasonable measure I think we could/should take is to update our background checks. It would require people and government agencies to actually do their jobs though. If you see someone posting suspicious shit on their social media platforms (like this kid was), then you report them to the FBI. From there, the FBI can review their social media platforms and flag them as potentially dangerous (if warranted, as it would have been in this instance). When running a background check, one of the hurdles that needs to be cleared is that the FBI hasn't flagged you as a potential threat. It's a simple idea, but it requires citizens to do the right thing when they see something suspicious, and it requires law enforcement to conduct the proper follow-up. We can't stop every nutjob from shooting a place up. Or getting in a truck and running people over. Or creating a homemade bomb and blowing people up. But we're finding that a lot of these folks aren't keeping their sinister intentions a secret. A lot of them are open about how messed up they are. So I think something like this is a step in the right direction. Yeah the UK & US are different which is why I also said I don't think banning guns would work in the near future, restricting them for now and working long term to either fully getting rid of them or nearly doing away with them is a better play, I don't think people having the right to own some guns is a bad thing, but imo that's limited to a revolver for personal protection, basic shotgun for your home &/or business in some respects & a basic hunting rifle for hunting obviously, anything more than that shouldn't be available to normal people, even then you should have to do training and such in not only proper use of the weapons but securing them as to not allow them to get into the hands of kids.
One thing I don't get though is how people say it's a right, if it's a right doesn't that mean it's something everyone is entitled to regardless, but then criminals cant legally own guns right if having been convicted right? so that's not a right is it it's a privilege, privilege's need to be earned and can be taken away, someones rights shouldn't be, or I dunno to be quite honest the whole thing confuses me sometimes.
Maybe one thing though would be to hold people who allow for things like these guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have access to guns more accountable, or like I said raise the price on ammo to atleast make the likelihood of someone having enough ammo to try and kill an entire school as miniscule as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 16, 2018 13:22:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 13:49:14 GMT
There are a number of reasons why you can't really compare the US to the UK (or any other European country), but I'm not interested in going down that particular rabbit hole. I'll just say that implementing the same laws won't necessarily have the same effect when you're dealing with very different people with very different histories and very different philosophies of government. But a reasonable measure I think we could/should take is to update our background checks. It would require people and government agencies to actually do their jobs though. If you see someone posting suspicious shit on their social media platforms (like this kid was), then you report them to the FBI. From there, the FBI can review their social media platforms and flag them as potentially dangerous (if warranted, as it would have been in this instance). When running a background check, one of the hurdles that needs to be cleared is that the FBI hasn't flagged you as a potential threat. It's a simple idea, but it requires citizens to do the right thing when they see something suspicious, and it requires law enforcement to conduct the proper follow-up. We can't stop every nutjob from shooting a place up. Or getting in a truck and running people over. Or creating a homemade bomb and blowing people up. But we're finding that a lot of these folks aren't keeping their sinister intentions a secret. A lot of them are open about how messed up they are. So I think something like this is a step in the right direction. Yeah the UK & US are different which is why I also said I don't think banning guns would work in the near future, restricting them for now and working long term to either fully getting rid of them or nearly doing away with them is a better play, I don't think people having the right to own some guns is a bad thing, but imo that's limited to a revolver for personal protection, basic shotgun for your home &/or business in some respects & a basic hunting rifle for hunting obviously, anything more than that shouldn't be available to normal people, even then you should have to do training and such in not only proper use of the weapons but securing them as to not allow them to get into the hands of kids.
One thing I don't get though is how people say it's a right, if it's a right doesn't that mean it's something everyone is entitled to regardless, but then criminals cant legally own guns right if having been convicted right? so that's not a right is it it's a privilege, privilege's need to be earned and can be taken away, someones rights shouldn't be, or I dunno to be quite honest the whole thing confuses me sometimes.
Maybe one thing though would be to hold people who allow for things like these guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have access to guns more accountable, or like I said raise the price on ammo to atleast make the likelihood of someone having enough ammo to try and kill an entire school as miniscule as possible.
Rights aren't things that are provided to you. They are things that you naturally have, and that government can't take away from you (the right to speak your mind, the right to defend yourself, etc.). That's the American philosophy. So in this case, having the "right to bear arms" means that you have the right to defend yourself against anyone who would forcibly threaten your life, liberty, or property. Doesn't mean you NEED to have a gun. Just means that the government can't tell you you can't have one (unless you're a criminal, in which you forfeit your other rights as well). There are a number of things I think we could do to reduce the number of gun-related deaths. However, I would strongly oppose a complete gun ban, as I think the 2nd Amendment is essential for a lasting free society.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 16, 2018 14:07:47 GMT
Yeah the UK & US are different which is why I also said I don't think banning guns would work in the near future, restricting them for now and working long term to either fully getting rid of them or nearly doing away with them is a better play, I don't think people having the right to own some guns is a bad thing, but imo that's limited to a revolver for personal protection, basic shotgun for your home &/or business in some respects & a basic hunting rifle for hunting obviously, anything more than that shouldn't be available to normal people, even then you should have to do training and such in not only proper use of the weapons but securing them as to not allow them to get into the hands of kids.
One thing I don't get though is how people say it's a right, if it's a right doesn't that mean it's something everyone is entitled to regardless, but then criminals cant legally own guns right if having been convicted right? so that's not a right is it it's a privilege, privilege's need to be earned and can be taken away, someones rights shouldn't be, or I dunno to be quite honest the whole thing confuses me sometimes.
Maybe one thing though would be to hold people who allow for things like these guns getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have access to guns more accountable, or like I said raise the price on ammo to atleast make the likelihood of someone having enough ammo to try and kill an entire school as miniscule as possible.
Rights aren't things that are provided to you. They are things that you naturally have, and that government can't take away from you (the right to speak your mind, the right to defend yourself, etc.). That's the American philosophy. So in this case, having the "right to bear arms" means that you have the right to defend yourself (against anyone who would forcibly threaten your life or liberty). Doesn't mean you NEED to have a gun. Just means that the government can't tell you you can't have one (unless you're a criminal, in which you forfeit your other rights as well). There are a number of things I think we could do to reduce the number of gun-related deaths. However, I would strongly oppose a complete gun ban, as I think the 2nd Amendment is essential for a lasting free society. That's a fair point, because even though we have gun bans here and over in places like Australia and such they are relatively recent we don't know what the ramifications will be in say 100 years because of it, also there is a big difference between our countries, for one thing no other nation puts so much meaning behind owning a gun as America does imo, but also even within America there are so many different regions, like for us in the UK when gun laws came in we had 4 separate regions in regards to large populaces to work around being Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales, that's relatively easy to find a balance between compared to the 50 states of the US, maybe that's the key though if gun violence is worse in the more lenient states but better in the restrictive ones then try and make the laws of those states the laws for the entire country.
The thing is it makes me laugh because in so many ways the US & UK are so similar to the point it seems when one does something the other will also follow suit, but then in some ways we are so different it's a wonder we even use the same language sometimes, and guns are one of those issues where we are just so different it is kind of funny.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Feb 16, 2018 14:28:13 GMT
The same time guns will be outlawed in Finland, which will be never--Finland had 2 school shootings in 2008 and 2009, 8 people killed in each shooting(both shooters were bullied)--Germany, which has gun control, had 2 school massacres in 2002 and 2009, in which 16 people were killed in each one--Scotland has gun control, but that didn't stop a shooter from killing 16 little 4 year old children--Canada has gun control but that didn't stop the Montreal Massacre at that school where 14 women students were killed--or the recent Quebec shooting where that white guy killed all those Muslims in a mosque--France had the Nanterre massacre where 9 people were shot dead in 2002--Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws like the US, had the Zug massacre in 2002 where 14 people were shot dead--Japan, which has strict gun control laws, 8 people were shot to death in 2001 shooting--and the strict gun laws in Japan didn't prevent that massacre last year, the guy stabbing 40 old people in one night, 20 of them fatally You were only able to mention 1-2 shooting incidents for each of those countries you mentioned, with the incidents spread over a number of years. In comparison, the US has already had 18 public shootings in 2018, and it's only February. That's more than all of the examples you mentioned combined. There have not been 18 shootings. This was a false number that every news outlet ran with. Even one is too many so I am not arguing that, I am just saying this 18 number is crazy. It is actually 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 14:43:26 GMT
Rights aren't things that are provided to you. They are things that you naturally have, and that government can't take away from you (the right to speak your mind, the right to defend yourself, etc.). That's the American philosophy. So in this case, having the "right to bear arms" means that you have the right to defend yourself (against anyone who would forcibly threaten your life or liberty). Doesn't mean you NEED to have a gun. Just means that the government can't tell you you can't have one (unless you're a criminal, in which you forfeit your other rights as well). There are a number of things I think we could do to reduce the number of gun-related deaths. However, I would strongly oppose a complete gun ban, as I think the 2nd Amendment is essential for a lasting free society. That's a fair point, because even though we have gun bans here and over in places like Australia and such they are relatively recent we don't know what the ramifications will be in say 100 years because of it, also there is a big difference between our countries, for one thing no other nation puts so much meaning behind owning a gun as America does imo, but also even within America there are so many different regions, like for us in the UK when gun laws came in we had 4 separate regions in regards to large populaces to work around being Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales, that's relatively easy to find a balance between compared to the 50 states of the US, maybe that's the key though if gun violence is worse in the more lenient states but better in the restrictive ones then try and make the laws of those states the laws for the entire country.
The thing is it makes me laugh because in so many ways the US & UK are so similar to the point it seems when one does something the other will also follow suit, but then in some ways we are so different it's a wonder we even use the same language sometimes, and guns are one of those issues where we are just so different it is kind of funny.
You have an excellent point about there being so many different cultures in the US. It's a massive country. That's why I believe that power needs to reside more in the state and local governments than in the federal government (as was originally intended). They are better equipped to understand and deal with the challenges that their people face. But the federal government keeps making power grabs and trying to force one-size-fits-all rules and regulations on people. It just doesn't work in such a diverse country. The federal government exists to protect our basic rights, provide a national defense, negotiate with foreign countries, and pave the roads so economic activity can be facilitated between the states. Other than that, they don't really need to do much else. Let the state governments do the governing.
|
|