THIS. This wins all the internets I’m allowed to give.

If not…

*facepalm*

Seriously, for one, I side – and I can’t believe I’m going to say this, because this is a sentence I never thought I would utter – but I am going to side with Antonin Scalia on the whole “gun control” thing.

I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns or weapons, but there has to be a practical limit for the simple reason that Weapons of Mass Destruction exist. Oh, you want to be able to “fight the hypothetical tyrant”? So, you want it to be legal to own your own nuclear bomb then? Because that would be pretty effective, right? Or anti-aircraft guns! Or tanks! Yes, let’s totally have privately-owned tanks. I’m sure that would be really great for the Miami roads… nobody would mess with you!

Seriously, most Democrats aren’t rabidly anti-gun; the idea that they are is a myth. The ones that ARE in favor of gun control aren’t in favor of it because “wah, then you could take out the gubberment tyrants!”. They’re in favor of it because they’re afraid of gangland-style massacres. Seriously.

I don’t have any problem with you owning a handgun or rifle or whatnot – or even lots of them. I do however, have a problem with the idea of literally anybody owning weapons that could literally take out the US government (because let’s be honest, when you talk of “taking out tyrants”, that is EXACTLY what you are talking about), because guess what? Usually that’s not what such weapons are used for. And even when they are, exactly how are you going to prevent another tyrant from being installed? Because yeah, that sometimes happens. In fact, more than “sometimes”; I would go so far as to say “often”.

As for the national debt – well, dude. It’s called a Recession, and it hit only at the very tail-end of Bush’s reign after building up for years (in other words, though he didn’t automagically trigger it, him not being in office didn’t trigger it either, nor is it the fault of Obama, who was elected AFTER it started). Though we are thankfully in Recovery for a change, you don’t get out of a Recession as a country by your government skimping; every time a government has tried “austerity”, it has ended badly (economic collapse, etc.), whereas carefully-managed assitance to the poor (so they don’t starve or freeze to death) and carefully-managed public works projects (so that they have jobs to have money to spend to keep themselves and the economy afloat until the job market improves), tend to help (case in point: the FDR era). This… this is seriously just common sense. It really is. You make sure people don’t die because they can’t find work in a crappy job market, you try to get them work so they can stay afloat, and eventually things gradually improve. You don’t cut your nose off just to spite your face.

You pay taxes precisely so that your government can provide for you; that is the ONLY reason you pay taxes, in fact. What else is the government for? For security, duh. Security of borders, security in laws and contracts enforcement, security of you and your property and the roads you drive on.

All that bitching people do about “unemployment benefits”? Those aren’t “benefits for the unemployed”, those are payouts from INSURANCE (much like Social Security is; people talk like it’s a Ponzi scheme, and that’s silly if only because that’s like accusing every form of insurance of being a Ponzi scheme. You get it because you paid into it and because by that point in your life, you need it). You only get “unemployment benefits”, if you have been employed for a certain amount of time and paid into it! It’s insurance against you being temporarily unable to support yourself, after you have SHOWN that you can and have in the past. It’s not a reward for laziness, it’s a backup for until you get back on your feet. The same applies for foodstamps and various “nutritional assistance” programs and so-called welfare, which are managed by states but paid by the federal government; it’s all based on your needs and abilities. If you can’t make rent on your crappy apartment without your child starving despite having a job, that’s supposed to help fill in the gap until say, your hours or wages improve.

And yes, I’m aware of the argument that there are allegedly people who cheat the system – to which my response is always, a.) if you KNOW of s a specific person whom you KNOW is cheating the system, it is on you to report it to the authorities and b.) why on earth would you punish a large number of the working poor who actually need it, just because some people are assholes who know how to game the system? That’s like saying we shouldn’t have any laws at all, because somebody always finds a way around it, or we shouldn’t have any police, because some bad guys will always get away. It’s a silly argument, that assumes any system can be perfect, and en even sillier one that any system that isn’t perfect doesn’t deserve to exist.

Also, there are always elements you might not be aware of, which are worth looking into neutrally, rather than assuming things to be as horrible as you’d like them to be. For instance, a lot of people think it’s stupid and crooked that you can buy “junk food” with food stamps… except, guess what, there are people who are prone to hypoglycemia (dangerously low blood sugar). Guess what the quickest treatment is for hypoglycemia? Yep: what most of us would call “junk food”. So, by allowing so-called “junk food” to be purchased, you’re not automatically hurting hypoglycemics. Yes, it means some people will not make good choices when using food stamps… but they’re also not starving, which is all the program is really for. And a lot of people think folks get high amounts of cash assistance… that’s really quite rare. It’s always based off income and expenses of the household.

I know there wasn’t terribly much about food stamps in your rant, but I had a sneaking suspicion you were unaware of some of the issues there as well, and it does tie in to national debt… though not as much as you might think. Guess what the largest chunk of our debt is from? Military. Spending.

We spend more than any other nations combined on it… if you’re so terribly worried about both our national debt and the gubbmit being able to kick your ass, perhaps you would be wise to nag your Representative and Senators to reduce the military spending budget, much of which has going to crooked third-party contractors anyway and the majority of which is overkill even without taking that much into account.

BTW, I think it’s amusing you complain about sending more troops into Iraq… considering the troop REDUCTION in the last year. At least one war has (on paper, at least) officially ended.

I could get into more, but honestly? I have to cook dinner and it’s not like “Steven” is likely to come back and read this anyway…