I know i may be splitting hairs... But your use of the word "All" is incorrect.

I seem to remember at least one of your list involving illegally obtained weapons.

Either way i feel it necessary to add; The ends do not always justify the means. We have been founded on principles that freedom and independence, in general, out weighs personal safety. But i suppose that's just us. These were safeguards against leaders gaining too much power.

And crime in the U.S., as a whole, has been seemingly unchanged by any gun control measures already passed. This includes Clinton's "assault weapon" ban.

With disregard to mass shootings, gun-related violence is MUCH more connected to economics than laws...

Good point, except for the fact that the government wouldn't come in guns a blazin like you mentioned.

It's called incrementalism. Scenario most folks are talking about would involve Martial Law type situations where civilians mount a defense. At first citizens would be outgunned until family members of soldiers were involved. Then most of the U.S. Military would turn on the powers that be.

Random fact... In general military leadership actually looks down on our special forces (in all branches). This (i would assume) is because they are the first ones to question their orders. (Quite commonly disobeying them if they go against morals or ideals.) You don't hear that very often, but I've seen it.

Point is, when a real conflict breaks out, most of those that make us as powerful as we are, will disband and join the people, starting with our most highly trained operatives. The glock's, Ak's, and AR's only give the citizens the initial ground.

First of all, I respectfully disagree to the notion of there being "no" organized factions or countries that despise the U.S. enough to commit violence on it (civilians and military alike). I have first hand accounts that tell me otherwise.

That being said...

I do believe, however that the majority of this hatred is stemmed more from our country's meddlesome antics across the the globe. We have troops deployed to more than 150 different foreign countries, and we have a system of controlling these lands by giving them large amounts of money (which by default these governments become dependent on), then threatening to pull the funding if at any time, said country does not meet our wishes. With enough countries under our influence we can shape world events. When you shape world events, you make enemies.

I also must admit, I cannot ignore the countless times when Washington's orders so blatantly came from a desire to extend conflicts rather than finish them. I can site thousands, yes, thousands of times where orders were given to stand down during critical points, perfect mission plans were denied for no reason, and ground was literally given up for no purpose (only to be retaken). No one is this stupid. And it isn't just politicians worrying about "feelings". So I do agree, something is definitely "fishy".

With respect Miss Harmony, It would appear a similar event had happened to Bush Sr. during a 1994 rodeo...

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-clown-revives-flash-backs-to-bush-bashing-including-a-rodeo-stunt

Personally i think the PR idea was quite brilliant.

I also believe we need a higher quantity of teachers.

(I know this is almost a contradiction)Provisions should be made making it easier to fire older ones (as i have seen many who get tired and focus their career on getting paid for doing as little as possible at the expense of their students' education).

There has been a huge push in my state to consolidate schools into larger districts. This is a horrible plan as now taxpayers' funds get put into a large pool and issues in smaller schools get ignored despite increased taxes. We need to get rid of this consolidation and allow for a greater independence of individual schools. Then we can study the more successful ones and learn from them.

I have never been a fan of the Department of Education, as their blanket policies often hinder smaller specific situations. I would not know how to overhaul the system without studying it a great deal, however.

(This may or may not be related to the above). Children with violent behavioral problems should not be kept in public classroom. I have seen this on several occasions where a child hits other students, destroys their classwork, destroys school property such as laptops, and yells/screams, yet the teacher cannot restrain him due to laws, even though he is literally punching other kids in the face. This is wrong, and we are traumatizing many just to cater to one. That mentality needs to end.

This push to create "more rounded" students by focusing on everything at a young age is also a hindrance. At a young age the old fashioned "reading, writing, and arithmetic" should be focused on. This is also an issue in college. In an attempt to "create more rounded students" you have to spend years (yes multiple) on subjects that have nothing to do with your major. For example; in order to get my pre-medicine degree i needed to take 3 semesters of art (That's 1.5 years). This is a waste of time and money.

Which leads me to another complaint;

Colleges are getting too bloody expensive. This means the system needs an overhaul. Step 1: get rid of the courses you don't need. Step 2: Get banks the heck out of our educational system. Governments should subsidize the students rather than the banks. Besides, student loans are creating hyperinflation of tuition costs. Personally i am expected to pay almost $300,000 for my college before i am finished. I know MANY who have Bachelor's degrees and $100,000 or more of debt. This plays havoc on the economy as again, people like me will be paying $2,000 a month for 30 years on graduation.

Again, i apologize for ranting...

The Bill of Rights protects citizens from abuse of power. It fries me to think many believe it to be a collection of polite suggestions.

Sorry about getting off topic...

Indeed, i would certainly like to know...

This is kinda like saying,

"Terrorism is a huge risk which our forefathers couldn't have seen. In order to combat it in our day we must tap all phones/emails, and run them through a constant database."

Or

"Crime is becoming an unforeseen problem and criminals have technology that was unknown at the writing of our constitution. Lets keep people safe by putting cameras on all street corners and all homes (in case of break in)."
"Lets conduct random searches of homes to look for drugs and/or missing persons."
"Lets disarm the populace."
"We could more effectively combat crime if we chipped everyone so we can track movements."

These are all very scary things. If we don't take the constitution as it is written seriously, all these are a strong possibility.

Indeed it is living, to an extent. But it seems as though interpretations from the court, and amendments improperly overridden are demeaning the document. Pushing it continually away from its intent. This intent being; balance of power. It has been stated by many involved in it's making that there are certain things the government should NEVER do. Things like illegal searches/seizures, disarming citizens, preventing free speech, etc. which are included in the Bill of Rights.

Our forefathers knew the very nature that still guides us today. All those in charge will actively pursue more control as it is their job to regulate. When the majority rules (which is a true democracy) 51% of the population can enslave the other 49%, quite literally. Everyone of all branches (including people) continually strive for more money. And everyone is corruptible (hence the balancing certain powers).

This would assume that people carrying have no training...

Not many who are inexperienced with firearms would elect to carry a loaded one, i would think. Most people i know who carry, either has some military/police training or have taken courses on the use and application of these firearms. Even those who just take courses have often grown up around them and can out shoot most police officers. Not impossible for someone with a lack of experience to try and play "hero" in a shootout though, regrettably.

I am curious as to the "trained" personnel of which you reference. For instance, you would be surprised at how well-trained, civilians today can be with the U.S. being as involved in foreign wars as it has in the last 11 years.

For those untrained, perhaps more training should be made available to those who would like to pursue it... Maybe some government subsidies for programs? In the very least Uncle Sam should stop cleaning the ammo off from gun store shelves so the civilian populace can practice. Even trained civilians need to stay in shape. Rather difficult when the ammo is so hard to find (also resulting in much higher prices when it is found).

Of course the "120" was poundage....

Also, i would tread lightly on requiring a retreat, as it is impossible to predict every scenario. (like the instance mention before) Also, I don't see myself fleeing if a loved one cannot. Its against my nature, as in the nature of any well-trained soldier past or present.

I agree on you about initial aggression. If one commits a violent act, retaliation of that act should not be criminalized. If a guy starts a fight (starts swinging) over road rage, then he cannot claim self defense if he is losing the fight (unless the other person pulls out a deadly weapon and threatens to kill him, in which case it now becomes gray).

Indeed, but the SYG law can be beneficial to some who use it responsibly. Depends on the situation. You dont want a situation where a 120lbs woman can't shoot the 6'6'' man who approaches her saying "im going to kill you" (or something of that nature) without going to prison. for murder...

I think what bothers many about the law is the open ended for "reasonable cause" for one's life being threatened...

In some states you have to prove that you tried to run away and couldn't possibly do so. Problem with that, is that woman from the example earlier, would have had to run first (turning her back on her assailant). If the man caught her she would most likely not know it until it was too late. With SYG, she could have pulled her gun, and told him to back off. If he still approached her she could then protect herself.


I feel we are treading on some definite gray territory here. There is no winning, and sometimes when you try to improve something that can't be perfect, we make things worse.

Please excuse my random thoughts...

Thought it was pretty outlandish how he was on the ballot in 45 states during the 2008 elections, yet i dont remember seeing in the debates with McCain/Obama...

That's what i thought... SYG was not used, yet they see it as an issue.

I suspect you are correct Willing. Anything can and will be done dwindle personal independence it seems...

And no offense, but that tutu kinda makes me want to flee as well...

Im not so sure that the SYG law was even used in this case. Didn't the defense plead "self defense"?

If so, im not sure why the SYG law is even being called into question...

More or less...

I understand where you are coming from, and can't really argue the fact that our constitution grows with culture. At least to a minor degree. Few would argue that expansion of the document to free slaves and protect them as fellow citizens. That, I see, as progress. This is a sign of cultural growth.

There are a few things that should never change, and that is the heart of the constitution. It outlines a system of checks and balances to prevent any entity from becoming too powerful, as there are those who endlessly hunger to seek such powers. It is gravely foolish to loose sight of the necessity for ALL of the checks and balances(with a slight majority of the power residing in the people as per design). This is also why its important for citizens and the government to have comparable weaponry and technologies.

To answer your question, if one has evidence enough to prove suspicion for someone being a terrorist, then that person takes this information to a judge to sign off on it. By signing said document, the judge now takes the responsibility you speak of, and is liable if he/she is checked by the legal system. This is how proper surveillance is done on terrorists.

Is it ideal? No. It may even cost lives. But that is a risk Americans take for being Americans.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

indeed...

But because all we can do is hypothesize, i must reflect with relief that Z has not been accused. As we all should. Had they gone the other way, it would reflect poorly on our legal system. (Innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt)

But where will Robocop go?

You know, that is not unreasonable. Capitalism, completely unregulated, may eventually end up with a few people who ban together and figure the system out to exploit it. Only problem is, eventually the same will occur with regulations. Those who are making the rules become more powerful than those originally taking advantage of the system and power, breeds corruption, just as it did before, but this time on an even less playing field.

This is one of many reasons a Utopian society cannot exist...

Just my 2 cents...