The Daily News Report: Here Are the Rejected, ‘Unpatriotic’ Amendments From the NY Gun Law That One Dem Preferred Not Be Seen | Video

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Here Are the Rejected, ‘Unpatriotic’ Amendments From the NY Gun Law That One Dem Preferred Not Be Seen | Video | TheBlaze.com

The NY SAFE Act passed a week ago in New York was deemed some of the strictest of state gun legislation — but it could have been even more so.

New York Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin explained in a Facebook post last week that he was given the “unpatriotic proposals” by a colleague. And while they didn’t make it into the final bill, that was “thanks to us fighting back.”

The Foundation

“How can limited government and fiscal restraint be equated with lack of compassion for the poor? How can a tax break that puts a little more money in the weekly paychecks of working people be seen as an attack on the needy? Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes—one rich, one poor—both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?” —Ronald Reagan

Insight

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” —William J. H. Boetcker

Founders

Patriot Post

“The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It’s a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another... Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure. There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise. Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it’s none of government’s business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I’d ask: Wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws?” —Walter Williams

The Daily News Report

Translate

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Here Are the Rejected, ‘Unpatriotic’ Amendments From the NY Gun Law That One Dem Preferred Not Be Seen | Video | TheBlaze.com

No comments: