JoeyB

There is no "general drift toward socialism". that is simply fear peddling by one side here versus the other. However, if you simply can't wait I'm sure there are a number of countries in Europe that conservatives in this Nation call "socialist" that might work for you. The book is not enlightening, it is to make a buck. Just as it points out is being done by the gangs.

There may be some who feel that way, but not all. Reasons for owning a firearm vary. None should be discounted.

I live in the suburbs of Chicago and both Sharpton and Jackson have held rallies and spoken out. So what? His age, his size, his demeanor?? None of that matters at all. No. It is NOT possible the 17 year old attacked the neighborhood watch guy. It is NOT possible when the guy was told by Police to stay in his car, and not only to stay in his car, but to not pursue. And not only to not pursue, but not to confront. And not only to not confront but to not kill. NOTHING else matters. Not the moon or the stars, not anything else about the victim. Nothing matters past disobeying a Police order.

Yes.

None of the 17 year old's past matters one bit. Nothing. It doesn't matter what his school record was, how big he was, or even if he had a violent criminal record. The Neighborhood watch guy had no knowledge of any of the 17 year old's past. He had no probable cause, no reason for suspicion. None of that matters. The single thing that matters is that the Neighborhood watch guy was told by the Police to stay in his car and NOT pursue the 17 year old. Everyone has heard the call. Had the Neighborhood watch guy followed Police orders, followed Neighborhood watch established proceeder he had been trained with, followed simple common sense, had he stayed in his car with his gun he would not have had his nose broken, his head bounced off the sidewalk (if that did happen) and the 17 year old would not be dead. The ONLY thing that matters in this case is that the Neighborhood watch guy provoked the entire incident. All of it. Jackson and Sharpton have held rallies here in Chicago. They are there trying to stop the violence. There are protests. There are countless leaders here trying to stop the violence. What are you talking about?

I agree, it was made to "level the playing field". But I think as a result of cultural changes brought on by WW2. It started with the use of black soldiers in a combat role leading to Truman's integration of the services, Jackie Robinson breaking the baseball color barrier, and music, specifically Rock and Roll, was significant in changing attitudes of young Americans - the baby boomers.

That's true. But isn't it still a result of what was happening in our culture already?

I'm not looking for implication, but rather education. I grew up then. I thought that the Great Society was a result, not the start, of change in American culture since World War II.

Interesting. Would you expand on that please?

Now you're whining about how you country came up with the idea to become independent? Let's see, the U.S Constitution was Law in 1788, the Bill of Rights came in 1791. 1788 to 1901. It took you 113 years to get there? You can feel as royal as you like. We have no royalty here, but we do lead. And did. And you followed.

Outgoing President Buchanan and incoming President Lincoln rejected the legality of secession. But Lincoln announced in his inaugural speech that he would not start a civil war. There were negotiations that failed. Both sides prepared for war. The CSA created a new nation, raised and manned and equipped a uniformed standing army. The CSA then attacked Fort Sumter. What you don't seem to grasp is the difference between organized governments manning and fielding an army, and private citizens owning firearms. The CSA made a government, manned, armed and fielded an Army. It was not about, through, or in any way to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is for civilian ownership of firearms, including militia which is manned by civilians. Yes, I do and I won't need the bridge. The President wants to solve a problem of Americans being killed. He wants it done without taking any of our rights away, in this case any of the 2nd Amendment. Had Joe Biden found that the majority of Americans want to keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines he would have said so. If you think for a moment that Biden wouldn't speak the truth in his findings, then you don't know Joe. The polls are showing that a full 2/3 of Americans favor an assault weapon ban and a ban on large capacity magazines. That is what Biden reported. He reported other ideas that Americans had as well. covering both sides of the issue. Anyone who believes the total and complete B.S. that is all over the internet about President Obama wanting to take the guns away is simply lying to themselves. The President has stated, and in no uncertain terms, that he does NOT want to change or repeal the 2nd Amendment. I do not agree. In those instances when authority was overstyepped it was then corrected, by the Constitution. Show me where is doesn't. When questions come up our Constitution provides that the checks and balances of government govern. The Supreme Court has ruled on Social Security, Medicare and now the ACA. Requiring our citizens to take care of themselves rather than have the rest of us take care of them is the debate point that is now law. I fully support that. The government doesn't know every penny you or I spend. look around where you are posting. Think about how much money moves due to this site alone. Unless you are a 'Person of Interest' you are not being watched as the TV show 'Person of Interest' depicts. We have no machine like that. TV rating are done by private companies as are internet hits. They make those numbers public. It is not written anywhere that the government should bail out any business or industry, nor invest in any. It has been done 'for the good of the Nation' at least since the 1830s financing the building of railroads and telegraph. This Nation profited from that. This Nation profited when Lee Iaccoca borrowed money to save Chrysler ands paid it all back early with interest, saving jobs in the process. And while I opposed the Bush 'give-a-way' TARP, I applaud President Obama for turning that program into a loan program with 8% interest rates applied. Most all of the $700 billion is back in the Treasury, and it's likely we will have a profit when all is done. I like a politician that gets my tax dollars back, with interest. And, as before, jobs were saved in the process. It was for the good of the Nation. Doing good for the Nation doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be good for the Nation. I think it's those who believe that B.S. who buries their head, right up to their shoulders, and not in the sand. It's just a lame excuse when citizens complain about missed perceptions but won't do anything but complain. OUR government keeps going because it is right. And when we get it wrong, we make it right. "WE, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." Do you think that charge to us by our Founders stopped? 'in order to form a more perfect Union' is an ongoing, never ending pursuit. If you haven't the time or money or inclination, then stop complaining.

Many Americans don't understand that as well! Indiana has a few who have a different view.

It is tough. Not only is the U.S. quite different in thought and attitude than most any country anywhere else, but it is so regionally as well. The viewpoint in Texas is different than the viewpoint in New York or California. But then the viewpoint in Dallas is different than the viewpoint in Amarillo. Here in Chicago some are still waiting for Texas to secede again. “America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” Thank you.

That is absolutely correct. There is now a long line of Nations that were formed by people who demanded to be free.

The Confederate States of America started the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter. As I said, they had formed a new Nation and manned a uniformed Army. It had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Sure it is. Slightly more than half elected him, or more as in the case today. His approvals and certainly the communication we have today plays into it. But as I said, the President assigned the Vice President to explore what The People want and he has. Their plan is to present the results to Congress. If the Republican/conservative led House fails to act then we can discuss the President's Executive Order. I disagree. They made a Constitution, and as pointed out earlier, sold the idea of the Constitution and states giving up some of their sovereignty to be part of this Nation. Also, as pointed out earlier, our Founders made the Constitution a 'living, breathing document of government' that could and would grow as they envisioned, and as we have. They certainly expected this Nation to grow from 13 States to a country that stretched from coast to coast, and they knew we would not be a nation of farmers for long. 10th Amendment - Reserved Powers The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I disagree. If you think your privacy has been invaded, sue. I do know. I told them.

You think you got the idea elsewhere? I don't believe that was whining at all. Wake yourself up. You followed our lead. I'm not your "mate".

I disagree. As I've already stated earlier in this thread, I believe we have more rights now that ever before in our history, and that includes having the Patriot Act still in force. I disagree. The Civil War saw states secede from the Union, form a new nation, and man a uniformed Army to attack the Union. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in play. Again I disagree. We see today, this very day, the Vice President address his findings in talking to The People of the United States. Yes, our government will make a law, but it is being done WITH our participation and approval. "Had"?? That's a smart friend. You should get him back. Again, as I said earlier in this thread, the Constitution is a living, breathing document of our government designed by our founders to serve us by being amended as we need. Personally I think that if our Founders were to come to life today they would be in awe, impressed, heartened and heart warmed at all we've accomplished with their ideas, their work, and their blood. They would understand that we still have issues to solve, that we are still growing. But remember, most of our Founders were Liberal idealists who decided to risk all they had build a Nation. And in that process they became Liberal realists.

This is page 12. The "bottom line" is that the 2nd Amendment is as relevant today as ever, and maybe more so. The rest of your post is horse manure. Too bad you felt the need to make your very first post here in such a chicken squat manner. Or maybe it's not your very first post, but you felt the need to hide. Either way, it says a lot about you.

Yep, that is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Insurgencies have a habit of winning.

I interpret that to mean that obesity lowers the number of purse snatchers, 2nd story men, certainly any museum burglaries where they have those laser sensors, compact car heists, breaking and entering through windows or heating/AC ducts...

The media are counting on having something to talk about so that people will tune in and sponsors pay. Republican/conservative Politicians would like for it all to just go away. Democrats would like to force their opposition to look stupid and lose their next election. Extremists on both sides want everything from repeal of the 2nd Amendment in full to wide open enforcement of the 2nd Amendment. We pretty much know all that. Based on our history the answer will be somewhere in the middle.

The 'problem' with the NRA is their attempt to 'blackmail' members of congress by threatening the congressman's job with big money opposition in the next election. It is no coincidence that Grover Norquist sits on the NRA board. He is the one who 'blackmails' congress the same way making them sign a 'pledge' against any tax increases. The Republican/conservatives in congress are the target in both instances, and they have the majority in the House of Representatives.

It was answered for you in 1994. The "cosmetic characteristics" that you call them are just the general description of assault weapons in the opening statement of the law. The law then is specific by name and model number which assault weapons were banned. An assault weapon is a weapon that has some or all the features of a military assault weapon, and can be converted to a full automatic military weapon. Once converted to full automatic a different law is applied, The National Firearms Act of 1934. People are bayoneted quite often. Usually in training. Folding stocks, like sawed-off shotguns, are made to conceal weapons. Some may want to go after ALL firearms. So what? They are not going to outlaw a semi-automatic hunting rifle with an external magazine. That is more gas poured on the flames of fear peddling, and does no good in solving the issue. And YES, if they were to simply re-enact the law from 1994 there would be countless people made into "criminals" by that stroke of a pen. But do you think it would be a felony to have a banana clip, or a misdemeanor? To what degree would the punishment be? Blanket statements like that are just like knee-jerk reactions giving us knee-jerk results. We need intelligent results.

Not yet. We will.

Yep, at least 33%, and likely just under half the Nation.