JoeyB

I think it's more the money end of it. The costs of mental health care would be astronomical.

I completely disagree. As I said earlier, insurgencies have a habit of winning. We won our independence as a "Nation of farmers", as Cornwallis called us, against the most powerful military of the time. Today look at Syria. Who is winning? Look at Libya, Egypt. Ask any battle experienced soldier who they'd rather face, a uniformed army or an insurgency, and they'll tell you a uniformed force every time. U.S. Armed Forces are Americans too. Depending on the reasons for an insurgency the U.S. military today would be split. And given the makeup of today's U.S. Military it would be split favoring the minority side. Look at what General Colin Powell said just today, and in the last couple of days. Retired generals have a following. Don't fool yourself. It would be bloody. But right would defeat might.

Ever see an Army officer with more than 30 years of service get "angry"? And not only armed and proficient, but with a command under him that would devastate. "Angry" happens to most everyone, most every day. What an individual does due to that anger determines if they are nuts or not.

Yes, it is. Make no mistake, an armed citizenry is a deterrent against a tyrannical government. That is very true, as Republican/conservatives just proved in the last election. However, back when I was in high school, 1964 - 1968, we had two armed Chicago Policemen assigned full time to our school. All Chicago Public high schools did.

Ken, Don't get caught up in the media bites. Gun lobbies can be as powerful as they like, and as loud as they want, that's part of our law. The opposition can be just as loud and just as powerful. That too is our law. Right now The People, to the tune of over 65% favor banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines. And that includes members of the NRA. The political/Law fight must take place, and our method of government will win out. When it is suggested that the U.S. ban all firearms as other nations have, then it's a viable comparison and not a "ridiculous notion" at all. Banning firearms has not stopped the violence anywhere. I disagree on the 3 groups. It is substantially more complicated than that, and it is based as much or more on geography as anything. The rural areas of the U.S. are far and away in opposition to any restrictions of firearms. The cities in the North want a full firearm ban. The cities in the South are only a bit more diverse, most leaning towards conceal/carry laws because their numbers show it works. The bottom line is that sane people armed to the teeth don't go off shooting up crowds of people. Crazy people do. That is where the problem is. And that will not be addressed because no one wants to spend the money.

Anyone who would attack a school at all must be psychotic. For that matter, anyone who attacks a theater, a politcal event, a military installation, or even a post office must be psychotic. So, we get back to the real problem.

At present it looks as though we will ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines. But as there can be no guarantee that a tragedy like this doesn't happen again in nations like Australia or the UK, or anywhere else all firearm ownership is banned, it would be no different here.

I do not know much about law or US law, but is it not usually the case that a referendum is required for a change in a constitution, thus making it always democratic, and not just up to elected politicians?

Thanks, but I was laughing at you, not with you. Must be you.

It was just the summer, and I had to pay for college. But yeah, it was good money then.

They all have a ring of truth to them, but not much more than that.

Ken, neither of those two deals in facts very much at all. But I understand that someone outside the country wouldn't know that. As was said earlier in the thread, and not meant in any way other than trying to give explanation: Anyone can pretty much say anything they like in this country. They can write it, they can broadcast it, they can try to sell it. But that in no way, shape or form means that it is true or not true. Determining the truth is for the individual citizen to do. Most times we're right, sometimes we're wrong. But then we fix the wrongs. And sometimes finding the truth is much like trying to separate fly poop from pepper.

Yep, they are far left. I am a Liberal, but I don't read their garbage either.

I did so earlier this week, three times all tolled. Talked about it earlier in the thread, too. I did have fun. Mikey. But then I didn't wear a hood or robes at all. I had an uncle, now passed away, that was from Fayetteville. Garvin. He wore the purple robes. Maybe you heard of him. My Aunt, also gone a couple of years now, divorced his racist 6. She was a deputy sheriff in Fayetteville. And then there still are a whole bunch of my closest friends nearby. A couple still teaching at JFK, others training. None are racists. They know better.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is not an answer to Sandy Hook, not an explanation/excuse or remedy, nor meant to be. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to all U.S. citizens.

You are welcome. If I can be of further service, just ask.

In the summer of 1968, my freshman year in college, I had a job on a loading dock through my uncle. It was Teamsters Union and paid $3.87/hour, Teamster Truck Drivers made $3.97 an hour.

The end links on the rep folded Oyster and on many Jubilee bracelets use the short 'tubes' welded in place. Does anyone have a method to open them up to take gen spring bars? I tried using a whole lot of oil and a pin vise, but the tube weld broke. Any ideas?

I wish I had known about Rolex when I first went in the service. I know that in 1964 for grade school graduation I got a Bulova 'Caravelle', their price line then, for just under $20. In 1970 cigarettes in the PX were $1.50/carton.

Mine too. But I kept wearing it `cause it was right twice a day...

Z, I don't think so. I think, and have no way of knowing for certain one way or the other, that Zimmerman was 'playing' policeman. He was armed, he was tracking a 'suspect', he radioed in to dispatch. By not following orders or established procedure and leaving his vehicle to continue following the 17 year old he made the situation. I think the teen turned on, or circled Zimmerman and the confrontation, verbal then physical, ensued. Zimmerman was likely getting his 6 kicked and pulled his weapon and fired. I do not think he intended that at all. But because he put himself where he didn't belong, he made a situation and the teen was killed. None of either one's history matters one bit. Neither knew the history of the other. All that does matter is that Zimmerman made the situation.

Huh? Most are not trying to limit access to semi-automatic firearms. Most in the U.S. favor limiting access to assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 2nd Amendment is not an answer to Sandy Hook, nor meant to be. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to all U.S. citizens.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle as told to do, if Zimmerman had not pursued the kid, as his Neighborhood Watch training taught, if Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, as he was advised not to do while on his Neighborhood Watch, none of this would have happened.

I am educated, and can read the language. Now, let's "educate" you. In a statement he gave to police the same night, quoted in his own written words: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.“ Florida prosecutors who later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the affidavit filed in April, special prosecutor Angela Corey wrote that Zimmerman kept following Martin through the gated community despite being told to stop. “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.” So what? That has nothing to do with the incident with Zimmerman. NOTHING at all. Who cares?? That has nothing to do with the incident either. NOTHING. It is taken as an insult. And your further insult is taken as well. You don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, to any rational mind (insult intended) Zimmerman was "most likely to commit a crime", and he did. If he knew the police were on the way why did he pursue the 17 year old while armed and against what he himself said and wrote being told to stay in his vehicle?

That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment. But this was covered some 10 or 12 pages ago. Then the world should use their head and look harder and further. Few here believe that Australians are represented by what we see in the news. But we could if you want to. He lost nothing, he said precisely what he intended to say. Who do you think his "masters" are?