Guns

Well, you conservatives may have bigger amygdalas (amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety) than us liberals and progressives, but I'll see your gray matter and raise you some in the anterior cingulate cortex (the region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity) LOL

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...in-study-finds

That is exactly your mistake. It is not *in the context* of a well regulated militia. Nowhere does it say the right (we already have) is to be given up if some definition of militia applies or fails. But you will choose to interpret even though you claim to be reading it straight.

Your argument fails in both cases - on a sentence in isolation and in the big picture of guaranteed rights to enable citizens to resist tyranny. Even if we did dwell on your militia point, your interpretation of the word regulated is probably wrong compared to what it meant at the time - you'll have to do some homework on that.

Once again, you are correct sir. It doesn't say anything about missles, tanks, jets, ships, pistols, rifles, hand grenades, IEDs, land mines, swords, knifes, switchblased, brass knuckles, hammers, axes, and on and on.

It only talks about arms in the context of a well regulated militia. You seemed to have to left out so i can understand your confusion. Of course the needs of a militia when the ammendment was written are different than the needs of a militia now. Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

So RR, you just as soon be in the room with a slasher who had a knife as a shooter with an AR-15 or AK-47 that had a 30 round clip or tow?

In the Gun Appreciation gatherings yesterday there were five accidental shootings among supposedly trained gun enthusiasts. The one thing we do know is where there are more guns whether it is in the home or in a society there are more shootings and deaths than when there are few or no guns around. When there are lots and lots of guns and ammo there are lots of shootings and deaths. Yes, people can be killed with lots of other things like bats, knives, cars, etc.. but not nearly so easily. As one graphic stated I challenge any of you hunters to go out and kill a deer, duck or hog with a bat, car or knife.

I honestly don't think that the an assault weapons ban will do all that much (except perhaps over time) after all it is pistols that cause most of the death and mayhem. Universal background checks and bans of large capacity magazines (along with buy backs) will help some over time. If we could guarantee the owners (were sane) could just keep their guns and ammo locked up securely and we could find some way to take guns away from mentally unstable people until they are well it might do more.

I don't hear the gun lobby, 2nd Amendment fanatics or even many gun owners (except perhaps myself) coming up with any alternative strategies that might be effective. Their nearly universal response is that they don't want anything at all done. IMHO it is unconscionable to not try some things to limit the violence and it is very sad that it took the killing of first graders to really get started. Teenagers, college students and innocent movie goers just weren't enough. What does that say about us as a society? Not much I'm afraid. Originally Posted by austxjr

I don't mind being with either , because I have a gun and can fight back with either ! Make whatever laws you want , I won't be following them any more than the laws dealing with speeding or hobbying ! Making laws doesn't retrieve all those firearms out there , and only a fucking idiot will surrender them !

So now what ??????? You go door to door around America trying to find all the people that feel like I do , and try face to face to get them see the error of their ways ?

I don't mind being with either , because I have a gun and can fight back with either ! Make whatever laws you want , I won't be following them any more than the laws dealing with speeding or hobbying ! Making laws doesn't retrieve all those firearms out there , and only a fucking idiot will surrender them !

So now what ??????? You go door to door around America trying to find all the people that feel like I do , and try face to face to get them see the error of their ways ? Originally Posted by rockerrick

No, of course not, but it is sad and just a bit pathetic that you apparently feel you have to be armed at all times and in all places. Further, it would seem (please correct me if I'm wrong here in this extrapolation) that you think everyone, including perhaps even first graders, should be armed at all times as it is the only way to ensure "safety". It is sad this attitude that we should turn our society and country into an armed camp. I too own guns and while I find them interesting and useful, I do not "love" them and have never needed them or wanted them to ensure my safety or freedom.

What happens now is a few laws (gun safety and others) probably get passed and CDC and other agencies can compile data to determine if any are effective and what might be more effective. We hopefully change or repeal those that aren't effective and pass new ones that have a chance to lower injuries and deaths and eventually we have a society that has fewer deaths and injuries than those that outlaw guns, yet we have a great deal of freedom to own and use guns for legitimate purposes like sport, protection and competition. That is the goal, but I have few illusions that it won't be messy and likely inefficient (just as the founders designed) and will fall short of the ideal since we are human and all flawed ourselves. Those who choose to ignore the laws will suffer the consequences if they get caught, but nothing will happen if they are careful and circumspect (like here).

I'm curious why you feel you need a gun to feel safe and secure? Do you really think our country would be a better place if everyone carried all the time? Do people who would like to be free of the fear of having deadly weapons around not have some right to be gun free sometimes?

That is exactly your mistake. It is not *in the context* of a well regulated militia. Originally Posted by endurance

So the almost godlike founders who crafted a set of documents that some, like the Bible, feel we should honor literally and in the context that they were written over 200 years ago, crafted every word perfectly except for the first few of the 2nd Amendment?

It's great that you are so much wiser than most of the the great minds that have debated what the full intent behind the 2nd Amendment really was, but I'm skeptical of your wisdom and insight. Most reasonable minds think that despite the lack of clarity, the militia reference must have been included for good reason. I honestly think it was crafted to the needs of the times and they never envisioned a standing army and great national arsenal, so the right to bear arms in that context is archaic and irrelevant, but that we ought to have a limited reasonable personal right to bear arms anyway.

I also think we ought to look at what "gun control" would look like in a world where there are no practical limitations (like guns wouldn't work if stolen or for crazy people) and then figure out what practical pieces would actually work and implement those. Background checks is definitely one piece that no one should oppose since a person on the terrorist watch list can now easily buy guns legally while they cannot board a plane. That's just crazy.

Your putting words in my mouth ! Whine and bitch about gun control all you want ! Won't change the fact that shitloads of us have them , and aren't giving them up to a bunch of whiney pussies , correct me if I'm wrong . But I don't see it happening anytime in the future . Perhaps you think that all the talk , or laws instituted , will be able to take it away from me ?

Typical gun fanatic rant. I didn't put words in your mouth, but extrapolated from what u said and ask u to correct me. I own guns too, but am not a fanatic and can explain my positions, while you either won't or can't. Too bad, since you seem like an otherwise worthwhile and interesting guy. This is why the gon control debate has been so pointless for 20 years and why both good and bad reforms will be rammed through this time. Few will or wnt to talk and no one wants to compromise at all. Guns have become a religion whith unreasoned beliefs and emotions involved and far too little reason. The big difference is that there is unreasoned fear on BOTH sides of this issue.

Yeah yeah yeah , little kids should carry guns , extrapolate this and guess what I'm saying ! You're assuming I'm a gun nut , and not just a FUCK YOU - you can't tell me what I can and can't do nut !

So the almost godlike founders who crafted a set of documents that some, like the Bible, feel we should honor literally and in the context that they were written over 200 years ago, crafted every word perfectly except for the first few of the 2nd Amendment?

It's great that you are so much wiser than most of the the great minds that have debated what the full intent behind the 2nd Amendment really was, but I'm skeptical of your wisdom and insight. Most reasonable minds think that despite the lack of clarity, the militia reference must have been included for good reason. I honestly think it was crafted to the needs of the times and they never envisioned a standing army and great national arsenal, so the right to bear arms in that context is archaic and irrelevant, but that we ought to have a limited reasonable personal right to bear arms anyway.

I also think we ought to look at what "gun control" would look like in a world where there are no practical limitations (like guns wouldn't work if stolen or for crazy people) and then figure out what practical pieces would actually work and implement those. Background checks is definitely one piece that no one should oppose since a person on the terrorist watch list can now easily buy guns legally while they cannot board a plane. That's just crazy. Originally Posted by austxjr

+1

your interpretation of the word regulated is probably wrong compared to what it meant at the time - you'll have to do some homework on that. Originally Posted by endurance

My research says that by using the term well regulated militia they meant well trained militia. I doubt any well trained militia would favor pistols or rifles as opposed to the superior weapons being used at the time.

Maybe you're right. They probably accidently left the militia reference in and didn't intend for it to be considered when interpreting the ammendment.

I knew this would be an interesting topic and there would be a plethora of responses from one end of the spectrum to the other. I enjoyed reading all the opinions here. One can't help but notice the providers can't contribute to the conversation much, I would presume because of their fear of alientating future clients with opinions different than their own. out of curiousity, if a provider came out with an totally different opinion than you on a subject like this, would u perhaps not see her due to her personal politicaL beliefs she dared to post in this forum?

I don't think politics or religion should be a reason for not hobbying together . It's not a topic that effects your business , such as money or services . Speak Up !

IMHO No matter how we wish and think we wouldn't be prejudiced against someone, I think we all make decisions on who we like or want to be friendly with depending on how attracted we are to their mind (ie beliefs as well) as well as their body. since what is at stake is my very livelihood, and the potential client might chose me and give me money I would want to do all I can do to alienate as few as possible by keeping my mouth shut on issues that would really move someone one way or another. I am overflowing with opinions but chose not to share the ones that would scare off potential clients in a forum like this. what good would it do me to be viewed as that opinionated loud mouth old broad even if it is true, hahaha.

I think you and many other ladies are capable of an honest opinion and debate. Now if you came out and said all conservatives are racists gun toting pro rapists that would make me think I was texting Cameron Diaz. But your opinion left or right would be respected.

Your doubts again... The people who care most about freedom in this country without a doubt want to preserve their right to own and use pistols and rifles. Many would want access to the stronger weapons and that is already a compromise that has been made.

Maybe you are right, the founding fathers would want only the government to have all the weapons and we'd defend ourselves from tyranny with a stream of snarky comments like yours.

My research says that by using the term well regulated militia they meant well trained militia. I doubt any well trained militia would favor pistols or rifles as opposed to the superior weapons being used at the time.

Maybe you're right. They probably accidently left the militia reference in and didn't intend for it to be considered when interpreting the ammendment. Originally Posted by Smokin Joe