You BETCHA I DID!!! I figured since you orginally blamed me for something I wasn't doing, I might as well join in on the fun of making you pissed. I LOVE IT!!!

Following this guy's logic, then the right to keep and bear arms should mean the government buys ALL of us a gun and ammo. In fact, the government should FORCE us all to accept government-bought guns and ammo. Is that what he's saying a 'right' really boils down to?

How dense are these people???

Suresh, just shut the hell up and get back to the making the shakes. That's the only contribution to this country that we need from you.

At least this guy recognizes we have a Right to Bear Arms. In a 'round about way...

Fred
Semper Fi

Well, most metaphors don't bear close scrutiny...

This one's a perfect fit though, as long as you leave out the whole "I give up some of mine to get some of yours" part; after all, that's just being greedy and selfish and doesn't deserve to be part of the discussion.

Gotta go now... there is a demanding cabal of parasites who will be upset if I don't generate enough income to fund their substance abuse problems and indiscriminate fornication.

I hope that this knothead is not a foreign student holding down a seat in a university that a productive American could be using. If he is, he can politely accept my invitation for him to return to his country of origin.

The autjor of this letter fails to recognize that the people who produce firearms and most other products do in return for money. This constitutes a trade as opposed to compulsion. Morality ends where compulsion begins. I just thought of that but it may not be original. It may have been in the back of my mind for years from other reading.

Just to clarify, do you think that a "free press" is basically some rich dude who prints arse-loads of news and distributes it out of the kindness of his heart (like Santa Claus)?

There's quite a difference between having the right to PURCHASE, with one's own money, a good made by another person from the company which employs said person as opposed to being forced to SURRENDER my hard earned money to buy it for someone else who didn't work as hard OR who wasn't as successful. Nice try though. I'd give him and "A" for effort except I don't believe in "A"s just for trying even though you got it all wrong. So "F" it is.

My typing is outta control today. Ya'll being nice not pointing it out...

Just goes to show if you take the ration out of rationilize all you have left is "lize". That guy has officially made every mentally handicapped person look that much more intelligent

Was that post another "chasing cats from an airplane" stunt?

The right to keep and bear arms is the right of ownership. Meaning, we have the choice to purchase a firearm or not purchase a firearm. The second amendment means that government cannot prevent the individual from making that choice.

Seems to me that a right to health care SHOULD follow on the same path. The individual has the right to PURCHASE health care the same as the individual has the right to purchase a firearm. The government has no right to deny that choice.

Every second amendment right advocate I know does not expect the government to subsidize his choice to purchase a firearm.

But make no mistake, the clowns advocating a right to health care are also advocating that the government subsidize their health care purchases.

remind us how stupid the general public is? I am starting to really believe that the majority of the people in the world are so stupid that the only answer is a dictatorship to run every facet of our lives as the vast majority simply cannot live without it. Understandably those who actually have a little intelligence sill have to endure the fact but it is for the greater good and the only way the world and the stupid human race can survive.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a public option, although if it were available, you would have to PAY for it as many suggest being the difference between Neal's and Suresh's perspective.

Let's make an apples to apples comparison. Sure you can buy a gun, trading money for labor. But let's say you make $45,000 a year and the gun cost $13,000 a year to own and maintain, would you be willing to pay that? Let's say your employer will pay 90% of it but if they let you go, you'll have to turn the gun in.

Let's say you've had several recent break-ins and sexual assaults in your neighborhood and you could not afford a gun. Who would you call to protect you? Let's say pitt bulls are not available in your state.

Let's say the gun manufacturer was told by the government, you can't be denied a gun just because you can't afford it. Let's say the gun manufacturer said, "fine, we'll send you one but we are raising the price of our guns to cover the loss." Now that gun cost $16,000 a year and your employer has announced they are only covering 80% moving forward.

You see where this is going. I'm just saying compare apples to apples. If we are going to say health care is not a right, it makes no sense to require health care providers to provide it whether it's life threatening or not, or face legal action.

Why should I buy health insurance if I can't be denied care? If people en masse, (80% of the population) decided they were not going to carry health insurance because they can't be denied care or they will just file for medical bankruptcy and carry on, how long do you think it would be before health care providers would demand the government get involved and do something?

Health care may not be a right but we have to find a better system to what we have now.

That confusing piece of drivel made my head hurt. I read it twice and it still didn't make any %^$^ sense.

Although Suresh is probably not smart enough to understand it he illuminates a point. Constitutionally speaking, rights are things that the government cannot take away, behaviors that they cannot prevent by their action or are government actions that the citizens need not suffer. Access to health care is as much a right as any other freedom in that the government cannot bar access to it. Arguing against the 'right' to health care services is a political loser in mixed company. However, if the "right to healthcare" topic comes up, it would be a great time to clarify exactly what a right actually is. In Suresh's mind a 'right' to something requires that the government ensures that every individual have it. If people think that way you will have a hard time making your points.
If health care is a 'right' as it is used in the Constitution, then any LAW or GOVERNMENT policy that prevents people from getting access to it should be considered oppression. It kind of changes the debate, doesn't it?

This is all Bush's fault. I'm sure that Obama was going to provide us with guns and healthcare, but could only choose one because Bush left him this. I'm sure once he creates the economic boom from the healthcare (think of all those jobs created and all the healthy people to work them) he'll get started on this.

And this person votes?

...don't even get him started with the "right to vote". That will really cause some heads to explode.

It doesn't occur to this ….. person that people aren't expecting the government to provide them with guns.

The larger point is that Despite the fact that they lied through their teeth about in order to attain power, the Statists in the National Socialist Democrat Party are going to come after your right to self defense – you can bet the farm on that.

"Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebt to Gabby Johnson for stating what needed to be said. I am particulary glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age."

It must be a form of art for two liberals to talk to each other. I could read that 15 times and still come away thinking "what the heck"?

Liberalism is a mental defect or Liberalism is a mental disease

Given the mass media, it is most likely a contagious epidemic that may eventually require instituionalized care on the taxpayer dime. That would still be cheaper than the lunatics running the asylum.

I see Mr. Krishnamoorthy is now posting on Nealz Nuze!

Somebody translate what this idiot "Suresh" wrote ...
I don't have a gibberish to English dictionary.

Wow. I know I'm just piling on but I think this person is clearly talking out of their backside. It seems as though they cannot differentiate between a physical right(healthcare) to a right that is an ideal(2nd Amendment). Yes the 2nd amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms but it doesn't grant you a right to that weapon. You must negotiate someone to acquire that weapon. The right to keep and bear arms does not grant you the right to walk into your local gun shop, point and say, "I want that one" then walk out with it free of charge. But in keeping with that spirit, you do have a right to healthcare as long as you negotiate with the provider of such. However, you do not have the right to that service if paying for that service is going to be done by others. It's really that simple.

To coin an old southern phrase, "Do What?"

Neal, Maybe we should all have some of her koolaide?
IS she even trying to make a point?
Plain induced rambling.

Hey Suresh, the ammendments to the Constitution ARE PART OF the Constitution.

...is an absolute idiot. This person should have a scoop of brain removed then placed into an asylum.

I expect that yes, Chris, that was the BEST rebuttal they could come up with at the Atlanta Journal.

I hereby nominate Suresh for the Most Over-Medicated Letter-To-The-Editor writer this week.

All in favor?

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read. I will never be the same. SDN is right - pure black hole stupid.

A definition of Black Hole Stupid - In general relativity, black hole stupidity is a region of space in a liberal’s head in which the ignorance well is so deep that gravitational time dilation halts logic completely. This forms an event horizon, a one-way surface into which logic and reason can fall, but out of which nothing can appear. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the information that hits it, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[1] Quantum analysis of black hole stupidity shows it to possess a temperature and Hawking radiation.

Despite a liberal’s invisible interior, black hole stupidity can be observed through its interaction with other sentient beings. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of brain cells that orbit a region in space which looks empty. Alternatively, one can see gas falling into a relatively small black hole, from a companion brain cell. This gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of illogical BS that can be detected from anyone not afflicted with liberalism. Such observations have resulted in the scientific consensus that, barring a breakdown in our understanding of stupidity, black hole stupid liberals exist in our universe.

If the AJC is trying to figure out why subscription numbers are declining, perhaps they need look no further than this editorial they chose to print. Obviously, someone on the editorial board either agreed with this or simply found it to be the "best" rebuttal to your original column.

The "right" to an attorney is a privilege that our nation's founders deemed important enough to include in the Constitution's Sixth Amendment. As for the police? Perhaps they should only protect the people that actually pay taxes? It doesn't seem smart, but it sure seems fair. And aren't Redistributors all about "fairness."

Are you suresh about that logic there? Oh well; it's the holidays, so, just for you, I dug up Burl Ives:

'HAVE A HARE HARE KRISHNA,
AND IN CASE YOU DIDN'T HEAR...
OH BY GOLLY HAVE A HARE, HARE KRISHNA,
THIS YEAR!'

I was going to add a comment about how Mr. Krishnamoorthy is confusing buying a gun vs. stealing someone else's gun, but I see others have beat me to it.

More disconcerting, though, is that this person is a Chief Risk Officer for ING. I have an account with them, but if their Chief Risk Officer can't get the simple concept of purchase vs theft straight, I should think long and hard about switching institutions.

Wait a minute. . . if I have the right to bear arms, why isn't the government providing me with a gun? I can't afford one, but I still have my rights!

Clearly, you have a dizzing intellect that borders on the imbecilic (and I mean that in a caring way!)

He argues that Boortz does not have a right to a gun unless he can pay for it. I guess the same must hold true for the right to healthcare then. Right? Oh wait. Maybe thats not what Mr. Krishnamoorthy meant.

Did Neal not PAY for the gun he would own in your illustration? Would he not PAY for the attorney in your illustration?

You're right Neal. This person is a complete waste of oxygen. I hope no trees were killed in the writing of that drivel!

I'm sure that letter cost me 50 IQ points to read. I can only imagine the black hole of stupid that produced it.