So leon if I learn how to build nuclear weapons and sell them to people what kind of regulations should the government place on me?

"But leon since you feel that way about old people and stuff. Have your grandparents send me their social security checks. Ill free them of their govt burden."

Impossible. They live in China, where there is pretty much no social security, There is, on the other hand, a law forcing children to take care of their parents financially and emotionally.

Yanik the collective agreement is simply taxation. I think we do deserve to help fund our elderly's retirement and medicare. Theyve built america.

"Leon, I don't often resort to this sort of speech, but you are currently showing the signs of being a disgusting human being and lacking empathy towards your own species"

Oh, I absolutely have empathy towards my own species. For our species to thrive, the weak must die.

"So leon if I learn how to build nuclear weapons"

You won't.

I also think we owe it to our young people to pay taxes so there are schools even if you personally dont have kids. Its a civic duty to keep roads paved, firefighters..ect

"I think we do deserve to help fund our elderly's retirement and medicare."

If they're "fit", then they should have made investments in their youth. Those who have should be rewarded for it as opposed to those who spend all their money and can take no consequences for their irresponsibility due to social security.

So leon if I start building nukes and using them on your family what kind of governmemt regulations should there be?

Leon, you're trolling. You have to be. I just have to believe that.

I agree with paying taxes to improve infrastructure, but I disagree with the way it is currently implemented to force States to make social change.

Uhh leon sometimes people get dementia and have no idea what they are doing. corrupt family members steal their parents money and throw them in a home

"So leon if I start building nukes"

You can't.

"Leon, you're trolling. You have to be. I just have to believe that."

If that's what your weak, sheltered heart needs, then so be it.

Some old dude in a wheelchair should just die at that point?

Lol at thinking bo's the sheltered one.

@brainbomb

ah, i see you're thoughts. I SEE YOUR MIND

but taxation is for everyone's beneficial good through material things: roads, postal service, military.

Healthcare was never an initial rite, don't forget. In prior years it was a family structure, but nowadays grandparents don't generally live with the family.

the destruction of the classical family system could be argued brought out the need for healthcare

@Leon: Be careful you might get muted by Brain.

"Uhh leon sometimes people get dementia and have no idea what they are doing. corrupt family members steal their parents money and throw them in a home"

That's why there would need to be laws in place to prevent that.

"That's why there would need to be laws in place to prevent that."
Socialist

So you want laws to prevent wealthy people from losing their money but you want poor people to just die?

Yes. I dont think the american people should have to pay for iraq. Congress, The Bush Admin, they cann all eat that fat debt
Hillary included. I didnt ask for war debt

"Some old dude in a wheelchair should just die at that point?"

At what point?

"Be careful you might get muted by Brain."

He's done it before, but he couldn't resist me XP

"Socialist"

Thievery is very much a socialist concept.

"So you want laws to prevent wealthy people from losing their money but you want poor people to just die?"

Yes, I want laws to prevent thievery.

"Yes. I dont think the american people should have to pay for iraq. Congress, The Bush Admin, they cann all eat that fat debt
Hillary included. I didnt ask for war debt"

I agree.

Brain, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of Congressionally allocated funds you have to bear. That is why the American population should care about electing dependable representatives and legislators as opposed to simply electing a POTUS and not caring otherwise.

Nah its about to happen again. You are actually a walking penguin of nonsensical libertarian nonsense at this point. Next yer gonna tell me seatbelt laws go vs liberty

@leon1122

the original intentions behind the second amendment were to prevent governmental tyranny.

could pistols do that? no bullet penetration
shotguns? to close range
hunting rifles? maybe... but not likely effective
THIS IS THE ARGUING SPACE
assault rifles? definite yes.

you need to remember that even if the government sends people out to fight, guerrilla warfare is effective.

if they send tanks, they'll only be effective in cities, and tanks NEVER move without infantry support. Tanks as a part of modern military strategy are extremely ineffective from defending attacks without infantry support.

they probably won't do mass bombing, which is the only sure-fire way to stop a resistance. why not mass bomb? they'll be destroying their own resources.

Nuclear weapons are a massive overtip of the balance.

saying that citizens should have nuclear bombs today, is like saying citizens should be allowed private armies in 1776. Militia's were always regulated so if you try to make that argument then you're wrong there.

Leon is trolling. Nobody is this stupid. Maybe Sbyvl, but otherwise, no. Everyone move on.

I was not old enough to vote for Gore in 2000. I didnt elect old coke-head. I voted John Kerry in 04'

Everyone please remember that Leon is like 13 and kids that age don't really understand a lot of things.

@JamesYanik

Even mass bombing wasn't enough in Vietnam.

You're right that nuclear bombs may be unnecessary today, but future technological developments could necessitate citizens to own more advanced weapons to prevent tyranny.

"Leon is trolling. Nobody is this stupid. Maybe Sbyvl, but otherwise, no. Everyone move on."

Whose Sbyvl?

^lmao