The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

I am not aware of a measure of corporate welfare (it is mostly hidden after all) and DOD is not the same.

But just the same a quick search indicates that the amount the gov acknowledges as direct and indirect subsidies to business is 92 billion.

Welfare 262 billion.

Obama increased spending on welfare by 42%

We were not talking about "legal pursuit" or "jail time," (which wouldn't happen for a candy anyway . . .especially as 99.9 % of children are then "criminals!"
We were talking about using guns. . . that crazy idea that it is just fine to own and USE a gun to protect ANY of one's possession. . .or none!

There are obviously a LOT of abuse there. But then again, the laws were made by the elite to protect their own possessions, so it is not a surprise.

Factual link please?

you don't think a ****ty econ had anything to do with that? its alot cheaper to help the poor when they have money and don't qualify...then of course the banks fell, the housing fell, the econ fell......

Exactly! I don't give a damn about what people THINK they read in the Constitution. I am personally convinced that our forefathers NEVER intended to spread machine guns all over the streets of our cities.

But, since it is the law, I (reluctantly) accept it.

However, If I thought I had a chance, I would fight to impose great limitation on the meaning of "right to bear arms!" . . .maybe even go back to the LITERAL word of our forefathers, and allow the "right to bear the same arms that existed when that right was granted!"

You obviously will think this is crazy. . .and it probably is, in this time of craziness!
But. . .it is far less crazy than interpreting a "right" granted so long before the development of WMD as a RIGHT to bear a small nuclear weapon. . . which we will probably end up thinking of as "our right to protect our home against terrorists!

Well, in my book, anyone with a gun who is ready to kill my child if my child steals candy from his home is worse than a terrorist!

It would be silly to shoot someone over a candy bar. But it would not be ludicrous to shoot someone to stop them from taking your life saving medicine. It would also not be silly to shoot someone who has repeatedly broken into your house in order to enforce the principal that they cannot continue to do that (provided that you have exhausted other means)

And the courts have generally held that the use of force as a part of the means to defend property is legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property

That's crazy talk. But if it were true, then aren't we lucky that those laws just happen to protect all property and not just property that is owned by the elite? What we need to counter any bias in which the property of the elite is protected more than the property of everyone is a healthy respect for property rights in general!!! Every time you dismiss the property rights of rich people you undermine the property rights of everyone.

Are you familiar with the term "criminogenic situations?" That is what MANY of the laws accomplish: putting people who are disenfranchised into criminogenic situations, where they are basically driven to "crime," small crimes at first, but because of so many "laws" that are old enough to date from the time when stealing a loaf of bread sent a father to jail and his family to the poor house, a young kid having committed a non-violent crime, may be thrown in jail where he will LEARN to commit violent crimes.

I am not dismissing property rights of anyone. . .I am defending my opinion that, when one has nothing more to lose, when one has lost even the hope to make a honest living that is good enough to allow his family to survive, one will be more driven to desperate actions. And, unfortunately, it is often the other poor people who suffer from it. . .because the "rich" are so well protected in their gated communities.

Crime is a lot more common in poor neighborhood than it is in wealthy communities. . .so what are you talking about when you say that "I dismiss the property rights of the rich?"
I know I have nothing to fear. . .I have roaming security in my community 24/7. I have a sophisticated alarm system. . .no one is going to steal my TV!

But, If someone needed it more than I do. . .I sure would NOT shoot them! NOTHING, NO material possession is worth the life of a person.

We obviously have very different backgrounds. . .and in my background, I have witness that "arms" do not protect a person. . .arms kill. . .and often it kills the person (or his/her children) that "thought" he/she was protected by owning a gun!

But as I said. . .I accept that, in this country, it is a law. A stupid law in my opinion, but a law just the same.

However, when I know that one of my friend carries a gun in her purse, I refuse to go any place with her. And I have made it clear that NO ONE is welcome with a gun in my home.

So why don't you sell off, or give away, all your material possessions so that money can be used to save the lives of people who need it?

Criminals do not obey laws and they certainly aren't going to ask permission to bring a gun along if they break into your home.

ok so bear your arms, feel free to where tank tops and short sleeve shirts..

wait you mean arms does not mean arms...you mean...you have to "interpret" it?

more likely that your kid shoots himself with your gun then you need to protect him with it...
about 500 kids are killed each year in gun accidents.

12,632 people will killed in Gun Homicides in 2007..( the other 17,000 where suicides)
How many where stopped by some homeowner waving his gun around saying get out? I am willing to bet...a lot less then that.

Japan has very few guns...guess what...it also has very few Gun Deaths...but I thought if they did not have guns they would all be victims of some horrible wave of crime?

Not sure why you guys can't accept that Guns kill people a lot more then they ever save people.

come on, pocket! You know that this subject has already been criticized to the hilt by the GOP!

don't you remember the scandalous display of Michelle Obama "bear arms?"

Or maybe that "right to bear arms" only intended to be for. . . WHITE arms . . . Like Jackie Kennedy's, for example!

You're the one demanding that some people be forced to sacrifice for the good of others.

we can't all be like you and be willing to sacrifice others for ourself...