Grateful Dead

but with all the books, CD's, video and audio tapes, DVD's and records I have...I dunno where I'd put the damn thing. I think the intent (and from what I have read) was that a militia, made up of citizens, was needed because a standing army was not wanted, for fear it could be used against the citizenry. And then, I'm reminded that all the OTHER amendments refer to the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so why wouldn't the 2nd? Another thing I think that needs to be addressed is the increasing number of violent criminals that are released from prison, while some poor schmuck who's only crime was smoking a little herb is kept locked up for God knows HOW long, while that rapist, or murderer, or armed robber, is out on the street, pulling his bullshit, and giving me cause to require an ability to defend myself...WTF?? Cookies and beer....I may have to indulge this evening, as the Mouse will be gone to Seattle to attend a...."formal" rave.....(yeah, I don't get it either), so Ben the dog and I will have the house to ourselves.... I've enjoyed this...rational discourse is so refreshing, rather than finger pointing and hate speech ...which BOTH sides are guilty of.....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I'm still one of those who get hung up on this wording. I've always read the "right" statement as referring to the "well regulated Militia," -- otherwise, why is the militia part there at all? My perhaps muddled understanding of this was that the individual colonies/states didn't have standing armies to protect themselves, so folks needed weapons in their possession in order to heed the call when a threat of force was brought to bear against the well-being of the "free State We aren't dealing with that today, and our current activist Supreme Court (how I love, as a liberal, to use that phrase in relation to a Conservative-dominated court) has ruled that I'm just plain wrong in my thinking. So throwing my interpretation out the window, the right to keep and bear Arms "shall not be infringed", given a lack of definition of the term "Arms", given a literal reading would mean to me that yes, I indeed do have the right to (getting back to the extreme) possess my own personal nuclear weapon. So this was the intent of the framers of the Constitution? But Johnman, I do like your checks and balances argument, for what it's worth. It's just apparent to me that the "intent" of the framers is unknown in this case, and given the advance in weaponry since its writing, probably irrelevant. Which leaves us where we are today: a country where the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not related to defense of home and life, but to murder and accidents. Again, condolences to all who have suffered violence in their lives, whatever the source. And pass the cookies and beer -- I can use some right now.

this doesn't bring back those innocent lives........nor heal the wounds......

except that I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment is one of the checks and balances that the people have against a complete totalitarian government...so, another extreme....if the government has access, the people should have access. I still believe this is the main reason that the amendment was included in the bill of rights, without the 2nd, you may not have the 1st, or the 4th....and while I'm on the bill of rights...what's up with it now being illegal to film or tape police in the....ahem..."performance" of their duties?...........if the rapture DOES occur on May 21, I'm pretty sure the mean, greedy people will be left out since they are mostly likely the type that have warped and distorted Christ's teachings of loving one another, into hating those that are different.............can I have a cookie?

I totally agree about the ridiculously easy access the general public has to military/police-style guns can play a large roll in all this madness and helps make the situation much much worse. "It's got no signs or dividing line and very few rules to guide"

Maybe the mean, greedy, selfish people will be the ones who disappear from the earth on May 21. We can only hope. IMHO, strict gun laws only work if they are universal in nature. As long as every state does its own thing, and that own thing varies as extremely as it does in the US, then anyone who wants a gun will be able to get one. That's painfully obvious. And...let's see. I look at it this way. And I'll carry the analogy to the extreme. 90,000-160,000 people died as a result of the US dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima during WWII. Is this just people killing people, or does maybe the potency of the weapon play some role in the results? If the nutcase in Tuscon had "just" a .38 revolver with a 5-round capacity in his hand as opposed to a Glock with a 30 round magazine, a lot less carnage would have ensued. So to get back to the extreme, if the potency of the weapon is irrelevant, then why are we all so hyped up over the prospects of Iran obtaining a nuke? That's what I'm referring to when I ask the question: where do we draw the line?

children should be given two cookies, and taught to share one, then, maybe, everyone would have a cookie and not have to steal someone else's cookie.....

That's why I specified "states that require ". I am aware of AZ not having a requirement, Alaska, too...and i think maybe Vermont. But still, in order to make a purchase, a background check is required. In DC no one is allowed a permit (at least not regular folks like you and I) and until the supreme court decision, if you had a weapon in the house (in DC), it had to be disassembled, effectively making it useless, however, in the states where permits are allowed or where a permit is not required, crime percentage is perceptively lower than it is where criminals know that there is less chance of people fighting back. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop the random nutcase like the shooter in AZ, who, again, ruined the lives of innocents and himself. I wish this all wasn't necessary....wish we could all just listen to music and enjoy life...wish all the mean, greedy selfish people would just go the hell away.....I wish........

which has shooting deaths a go go every year (and while historically much of this has been no-goodnik-on-no-goodnik violence, more and more innocents are getting caught in the crossfire these days, from babies to grannies). It also has a county sheriff whose policy is to make it essentially impossible for any resident of Alameda County who's a regular civilian to get a concealed carry permit. Stringent laws on the books don't necessarily have the intended result.

But the difference now-a-days is the general lack of respect between people. At its worst is the lack of respect for our gift of life. When I was growing up and going to elementary and hgh school, if you had a problem with someone you confronted them and at the worst you duked it out "after school under the flag pole on the black top" and that was usually the end of it. You would go home with a black eye and that was it. Even during a playground fist-fight, there was respect for life (i.e. no one pulling out a weapon). Now kids have decided to skip the confrontation part and go straight to the solution - bring a gun to school and shoot the place up (lack of repsect for other's life) and then turn the gun on themselves (lack of respect for own life). I don't know about you all but we had just as easy access to weapons back then as kids do now, maybe even more so, but no one ever pulled out a weapon back then. I just wonder and ask myself - when, how and why did we shift over to a state of such hopelessness that murder and suicide are the only solutions?? "It's got no signs or dividing line and very few rules to guide"