Okay, I'm Sure i'll Get Flamed but

Unfortunatly people now have been conditioned to believe that maintaining a huge arsenal is the ONLY reason there hasnt been a total advent of communism and white slavery. Seriously. In august a piece of legislation came before congress on reducing teh amount of lead in bullets. The NRA and their enablers opposed the removal of lead from bullets (the lead was damaging wetlands when hunters missed) because this was am "unjust regulation of our gun rights." I guess asking for bullets to be environmentally friendly is one step away from slavery and patriotic americans being sent to the camps.

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/08/15/nra-opposing-efforts-to-regulate-lead-hunting-ammo/

The comic below shows how any talk of any gun regulation is a dead at the start. Even here, saying that you want better background checks or real and enforced registration is shot down with great prejudice. There is no gun discussion in this country, only funerals.

about that, though.

The heavy metal lead provides the force which can KILL. If bullets were RUBBER or PLASTIC there would be less chance of killing. Only a hunter would want to kill and PRACTICE ammunition is NOT for killing. The NRA would have a COW over this BOLD CONCEPT.

Regulate who could have HEAVY METAL bullets and promote the selling of LOW MASS bullets.

You might be on to something.

http://www.huntingwithnonlead.org/
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/certifiedammo.html
http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/GreenBullets/GreenBullets.htm

For self defense, I would actually prefer a Star Trek phaser with a "stun" setting. Let them sleep it off while waiting for the cops, no PTSD for the defender.

Back in the 1770's there weren't any people hooked on prescription medication, depressed and schizophrenic running around with Bushmaster .223 rifles with 30 rounds.

I wouldn't have a problem with the 2nd amendment if we still had muskets.

is just so analogous to shooting children dead.

it's a nonexistent problem....???

it's a nonexistent problem....???

and if it leads directly to violence it isn't covered by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that there are limits to the right to free speech. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and all that. Libel and slander. Inciting a riot, etc. etc. etc.

How do you feel about twenty children being shot multiple times, along with six adults, because one of those adults was simply "exercising her Second Amendment rights" and evidently got sloppy about locking up her precious guns? You think maybe we might put some limits of the "right" of people to own instruments of mass murder? (And please don't give me any more lame ass analogies, to knives, cars, fertilizer, aerosol cans etc. etc. etc.)

The thought that separation of church and state and freedom of expression still seem to be worthwhile goals we are still reaching to achieve and that should be ignored baffles me. Considering the fact a girl was shot and almost killed just because she wanted to go to school and make school available to other girls makes it seem we have not really become a civilized society.

There are an alarming number of so-called progressives who would gladly suspend the right of others whose behavior offends them. It's a lot like how some reactionaries despise black folks for daring to exercise theirs.

It is a ridiculous analogy.

One can stand on the corner, or in the town square and exercise free speech. No quill pen, no printing press required. The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about the instruments of free speech.

The 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, specifically calls out the right to bear arms as part of a militia, not as an individual.

Here's what Bork had to say :


"I'm not an expert on the Second Amendment, but its intent was to guarantee the right of states to
form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." In the same lecture, he added that "assault weapons
could be banned under the Constitution," and that other restrictions on guns were constitutional.

In 1991, he went at the gun rights' lobby: "The National Rifle Association is always arguing that
the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to
bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets.
But that's not the original understanding."

"The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly
tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear
weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose."

Bork was actually being an honest, true conservative in his opinion and doing his best to interpret the Constitution as it was intended.

Liberal scholars like Larry Tribe says other wise, even if he honestly doesn't like it. Bork didn't get the fact that the BoR is a set of negative rights. He may have been honest as far as actually believing that, and he was being consistent, just like he saw no right to privacy being granted.
On he other hand, maybe he read about the Pink Pistols and got paranoid.
As for "stealth bombers and nukes", those planes, even drones. need spare parts including regular tire changes or they don't leave the ground. Without logistics, nothing happens. Or as they say in the tanker community tell the fighter jocks "there is no kicking ass without tanker gas." That is what makes both versions of Red Dawn bogus. While the USSR had the strategic airlift to resupply their air bases, North Koreans don't. Those big assed cargo planes would be high value targets for insurgents. Mortars and tracers in the tank farms, cyber attacks on maintenance and flight records.

The Second Admenment is about defense of self and property as PA (1776) and VT (1777) said in their constitutions.

But seriously, what other nations have a "standing army"?

Switzerland, Europe's "postage stamp countries", Palau, and Costa Rica are about about the only ones that don't. Now if you want to talk about empire, we replaced the Brits and outlasted the Japanese and Soviets.
to answer your question, most countries.

mass shootings. USA is #1 in that category.

also #1 in the number of firearm murders.


good times (sarcasm)

since the US media doesn't exactly cover overseas events much. Like the rash of school massacres in China recently. Knives were used, but it as just as tragic, the kids are just as dead, the parents mourn just as much.
I am more interested in ending all mass murders. The worst school massacre in US history would not have been deterred by gun laws, armed teachers, or anything to do with guns. Why? Because the asshole beat his wife to death, planted three bombs in the elementary school, and killed himself in a car bomb. The 38 kids and six adults were just as dead, 58 were just as wounded, their parents mourned just as much, and was just as tragic.

number one in firearms murders? I don't know where you got that number, but when it comes to murder rates per capita, we are not even close. I don't give a shit about separating by weapons.

When people wring their hands about "gun suicides" or "gun murders" instead how can we work together to do something about all suicides, all murders, my cynical side comes out. That cynical side makes me wonder if it is really about saving lives or just continuing some trivial culture war.
You tell me,
Do you care about all murders and all suicides, or just by firearm?

LIE. That is a lie and you know it. The attack on friday injured 20 some kids but NONE died. NONE. and Yes, time and again there are deaths from knife attacks but I guarantee you someone wth a knife isnt going to kill dozens at a movie theatre, or elementary school, or high school, or sikh temple, or mall, or mcdonalds, or post office.

a lie is telling an intentional untruth
I also said "a rash of" as in others including Friday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2010/05/china_under_pressure.html

really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamoru_Takuma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuyama_massacre

this cop still has the world's record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

I think hate/talk radio mixed with machetes is the biggest killer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Media_propaganda

you speak for you, they speak for themselves. They don't speak for DU. Neither do you. If they want to tell 30 percent of the party that they are not welcome, they can knock themselves out.

my bad.

Next time try googling or go to a site like this
http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/a/f/What-Is-AFAIK.htm

and it is totally illogical in this day and age to think that one person or his minimal army is going to stand up against the entire United States Armed Forces. It almost boarders on the insane to think about.
The greatest weapon we have against tyranny is the 1st Amendment granting us freedom to speak our minds.

It was able to easily subdue the organized military organizations of these countries but struggled with the insurgency movements in the two nations.

While we do have the most powerful military in the world it is not quite the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious organization you imagine.

Make them waste resources because there might be a rifle in that window. There might be a bomb in that road. Anytime, anywhere, you might be dead before you finish exhaling. The concepts of "front," "rear," "advance," "retreat" are irrelevant to the guerilla. His rear line is anywhere and everywhere, including the rear line of the organized enemy. Mao was no slouch.

I'm not aware of guns/rifles/muskets/whathaveyou being universally banned at any point among US citizens.

and it is time to stop being held hostage by these domestic terrorists who think their precious right to "bear arms" supersedes my right to live in peace.

How could the new US not do the same? The notions weren't completely new:

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

Too bad if you were Catholic.

Views today are probably still based on the fantastic notion that citizens can use small arms to challenge government police and military forces equipped with the same plus artillery, armored vehicles, ground-attack aircraft, etc., never mind many other complications that citizens face, such as the fact that the small arms that they purchase are from manufacturers that are supported by the same government and that equip not only the same police and military forces but even armed groups abroad, that they live in a heavily debt-ridden economy coupled with a JIT system that provides only a few days' worth of food and medicine to various towns and cities. In fact, the last point may even lead to a situation where civilians will arm themselves not only to face a tyrannical government but even defend themselves from each other.