- Messages
- 1,104
- Reactions
- 606
Greetings all,
My goal with this is to get some conversation going about what seems like an almost obvious idea to me. Though, as this is the web, one must take most of anything on here with a grain of salt.
So here goes the idea. Personally I think that a National Health care system isn't a bad or good idea. It is how you implement it that makes it a good idea or bad idea. So far, from the copies of the bill I've read (in part not in whole, don't have that type of free time) it has been filled with crap. Lots of crap.
Thus you get people politicians fighting over how to change it. Or how to compromise over this or that. Great. Super. Bleh, bleh.
One thing recently which sparked my interest is that the recent form now has an addendum about expanding the college funding. OK. Now we are talking. It seems like someone out there figured out how our government is suppose to work. Name of the game, Compromise.
So, this is my long winded way of saying, if the Conservative's (I use this lightly as who knows what that means any more) REALLY want to protect gun rights, why don't they add an addendum which would protect our gun rights as long as the health care is in place? Or perhaps even further, a National Conceal Carry Permit? Not registration, or licence, but like the Oregon or Washington or Utah CHL. Or perhaps an NFA repeal? Or Removal of ATF.
Huh? Say just 10 Conservatives in the Senate choose to support this addition and by proxy the Health Care Bill. Then say they were able to get 20 or 30 people in the House to support it. All of a sudden you have Health Care (Sure not great) and Gun Rights protection linked to that Health Care.
Think about it. The supporters of the Health Care Bill would have to make a choice. A hard choice. Either toss all of it or, Compromise.
NOW, I understand the devil is in the details. It might be a horrible idea, or it might be a great idea. But at a high level, and as a compromise, why hasn't anyone thought about this?
I mean, you would have anti-gun folk having to make a really hard choice. Go for Health care, knowing all of us 'crazy' gun nuts would now have firm reinforcement of our rights, or let it drop knowing they screwed up and could compromise.
Seems like an easy win-win, lose-lose path to me.
Thoughts?
M
My goal with this is to get some conversation going about what seems like an almost obvious idea to me. Though, as this is the web, one must take most of anything on here with a grain of salt.
So here goes the idea. Personally I think that a National Health care system isn't a bad or good idea. It is how you implement it that makes it a good idea or bad idea. So far, from the copies of the bill I've read (in part not in whole, don't have that type of free time) it has been filled with crap. Lots of crap.
Thus you get people politicians fighting over how to change it. Or how to compromise over this or that. Great. Super. Bleh, bleh.
One thing recently which sparked my interest is that the recent form now has an addendum about expanding the college funding. OK. Now we are talking. It seems like someone out there figured out how our government is suppose to work. Name of the game, Compromise.
So, this is my long winded way of saying, if the Conservative's (I use this lightly as who knows what that means any more) REALLY want to protect gun rights, why don't they add an addendum which would protect our gun rights as long as the health care is in place? Or perhaps even further, a National Conceal Carry Permit? Not registration, or licence, but like the Oregon or Washington or Utah CHL. Or perhaps an NFA repeal? Or Removal of ATF.
Huh? Say just 10 Conservatives in the Senate choose to support this addition and by proxy the Health Care Bill. Then say they were able to get 20 or 30 people in the House to support it. All of a sudden you have Health Care (Sure not great) and Gun Rights protection linked to that Health Care.
Think about it. The supporters of the Health Care Bill would have to make a choice. A hard choice. Either toss all of it or, Compromise.
NOW, I understand the devil is in the details. It might be a horrible idea, or it might be a great idea. But at a high level, and as a compromise, why hasn't anyone thought about this?
I mean, you would have anti-gun folk having to make a really hard choice. Go for Health care, knowing all of us 'crazy' gun nuts would now have firm reinforcement of our rights, or let it drop knowing they screwed up and could compromise.
Seems like an easy win-win, lose-lose path to me.
Thoughts?
M