Friend sent me this, have to say, it makes the point well...

[DigitalBuddha]

A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...

[Zen Dog]

A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...

Put the piece away Walter.

[DigitalBuddha]

A friend sent this to me; have to say, it makes the point well...

Put the piece away Walter.

Calmer than you are.

[A Stoned Buddha]

I know this won't be popular here. But, I have to disagree. I get that knee-jerk legislation is a bad solution to this issue and I know that the people these asinine laws affect most are law-abiding people, but I still feel the right thing to do is the hard thing to do. More semi-automatic guns will never make for a safer world. We have created a hell of a mess in this country and maybe that's just the process of human society evolving. I know it's hard and scary to understand that bad shit just happens to people. Will my family be shot? I don't know. I hope not. But, I don't feel that a large capacity magazine and military style gun is the end-all solution. What is anyone's life worth? Is anyone's worth less than mine or my families? I just can't say. The Dao flows, and "bad" and "good" happen. Of course I will do what I can to protect myself and family the best I can, but stock piling military weapons in the name of "freedom" that anyone could steal and use such as the maniac in CT did is just not worth it to me. But, I certainly don't think I know what's best for you. I guess it boils down to that I think we need a collective change of heart instead of change of law. Yeah, I know. Sounds unlikely to me too. Keep'er easy, man.

[BikerDude]

I believe in the second amendment and also believe we have a big problem with guns that must be addressed.
And I believe the NRA (which I am a member of) is an impediment to progress rather than an aid. Effectively they block any, even the most common sense measures at not gun control but gun responsibility. The gun show loophole is an example. As a gun owner I believe there is absolutely no excuse for allowing that.
In my opinion it's time for gun advocates to step up to the plate and work for common sense solutions rather than drawing a line in the sand and standing shoulder to shoulder.

[mrpaddy]

I don't get the second amendment thing.

The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia. Every random fella buying a gun to protect himself from other random fellas with guns doesn't seem like a well-regulated militia to me, that just seems like giving everyone guns and then saying "hey, don't take our guns away, because if you ignore the first half of that sentence in the amendment it sounds a bit like we're all supposed to be allowed guns."

Obviously I'm not a US citizen or an expert on US law so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong about my understanding of the meaning of that sentence. But from over here it looks like you guys have way too many guns per square foot, coupled with a medical profession that seems even happier than ours to prescribe mind-fucking drugs for any old reason... doesn't seem like a good combination to me.

Just my opinion, man.

[DigitalBuddha]

I don't get the second amendment thing.

The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia. Every random fella buying a gun to protect himself from other random fellas with guns doesn't seem like a well-regulated militia to me, that just seems like giving everyone guns and then saying "hey, don't take our guns away, because if you ignore the first half of that sentence in the amendment it sounds a bit like we're all supposed to be allowed guns."

Obviously I'm not a US citizen or an expert on US law so please feel free to tell me I'm wrong about my understanding of the meaning of that sentence. But from over here it looks like you guys have way too many guns per square foot, coupled with a medical profession that seems even happier than ours to prescribe mind-fucking drugs for any old reason... doesn't seem like a good combination to me.

Just my opinion, man.

You're not noticing the commas; which means a new subject within a paragraph; as seen here...

The Second Amendment states THREE SEPARATE things that "shall not be infringed" divided by commas.

1. "A well regulated militia" (it does not say a government regulated militia, just well regulated or organized one)...this shall not be infringed.

2. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Notice BOTH keep (own and have in possession) AND bare (carry)...this shall not be infringed.

3. The above, 1 and 2, shall not be infringed.

And it goes on to say that BOTH are "necessary to the security of a free state..." I.e., YOU MUST HAVE THEM or at least protect the people's right to organize one.

A well regulated militia,COMMA being necessary to the security of a free state,COMMA the right of the people to keep and bear arms,COMMA shall not be infringed.

Whether we have a "A well regulated militia" or not, at any given time in history, we have the right to create them as the freedom to do so is mandated and protected in the Second Amendment.

The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it won't ever be an issue unless a tyrannical government takes it away from the People." ~ Thomas Jefferson



IMHO.

[RighteousDude]

The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia.

The trick, then, is to understand who, in these Untidy States, is a member of said militia. It is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 years of age, and all veterans to age 65. This is according to the Militia Act of 1903. Prior to that, "the militia" was simply all able-bodied males.

[DigitalBuddha]

The way I read it, it's saying the right to bear arms is protected for a well-regulated militia.

The trick, then, is to understand who, in these Untidy States, is a member of said militia. It is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 years of age, and all veterans to age 65. This is according to the Militia Act of 1903. Prior to that, "the militia" was simply all able-bodied males.

Actually, the founding Fathers believed that any able bodied person (probably male) who could shoot (capable of baring arms) was by default a member of the American militia unless their loyalty laid elsewhere other than the United States. Hence; "minute men."

[Masked Dude]

Well, see, again when you said "over here" it shows that the media all over wants to make it look like we're a bunch of chaotic gun-toting insane villains. Journalism has become a rat race of who will show the most sensational story of all. Instead of showing any true stories, such as when someone helps another or (heaven forbid) a gun is used in defense, the media anywhere will just say there X guns per American citizen. They'd rather show crazy or evil people doing horrible things rather than show feelgood stories or anything that doesn't agree with the "Americans are evil" stories. (Funny how the ones who say that are also the ones who want the USA to send aid to everyone around the world. )

[kilteddude]

This reminds me of a question posed to my class by my former high school history teacher when we were discussing the US Constitution.  He asked that we go around the room and say how many guns were in our homes.  The bulk of my class said 0, 1, or at most 2.  There was a collective gasp when it was my turn and the answer was significantly larger than the rest of the class.  In this particular class I was the only person that hunted on a regular basis, and so did my dad, mom, and brother.  Since we hunted everything from squirrels to ducks to deer we each needed more than a single gun available to cover this.  The class seemed even more surprised when the teacher, also an avid hunter, responded by saying "that sounds about right for a family of four hunters" and moved on.

[mrpaddy]

Thanks to DB and those who expanded my understanding on the whole "militia" front - as I say, I'm not all that up on American politics.

So if the term militia is so loose as to include anybody with a dick between 17 and 45, plus vets, or indeed any able-bodied person... what about the "well-regulated" part? If the entire able-bodied population of your enormous country can be a militia, can it ever be well-regulated without further regulating who can join said militia?

Basically.. too many guns, man. Factoring in other social aspects, it's just a recipe for this kinda shit.

[RighteousDude]

what about the "well-regulated" part? If the entire able-bodied population of your enormous country can be a militia, can it ever be well-regulated without further regulating who can join said militia?

Ain't nuthin' in this world gonna regulate your behavior quite so effectively as the knowledge that those whom you might wrong have the capacity to truly fuck your shit up.

[milnie]

By sticking it up your ass and pulling the trigger till it goes click? :)

[Stever]

Too many guns?
No..too many fucked-up people,too much media bias,making gun owners all sound like some wacky fringe group of fruitcakes!


Claim: "Expiration of the [federal 'assault weapon'] ban was a serious blow to public safety." To the contrary, since the ban expired, as the number of "assault weapons" that Americans own has risen by more than 2 million to an all-time high, the nation's total violent crime and murder rates have fallen to 37-year and 47-year lows, respectively.

"Who needs an 'assault weapon'"? Gun control supporters' favorite question is illegitimate. The burden of proof in a free society is not upon people who want to exercise rights, it's on people who want to restrict rights.

Interesting article I looked at-
Take it for what its worth..
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/