Actually, there *is* a right way to watch Star Wars. You watch them in the order released, skipping the prequels (the so called episodes I, II, and II) entirely. There is no way to watch those worthless pieces of crap without spoiling the seminal movies, and since they add absolutely nothing to the series you've lost nothing . Then you watch the others - The Force Awakens, Rogue One, etc.
From a Public Health perspective, I agree wholeheartedly with gun control; if you have to go to the kitchen and get a butcher knife, then look your victim in the eye as you stab them, and get drenched in their blood, then maybe - just maybe - you'll not go through with it. If you can just grab a small piece of ironmongery and pop off a few rounds from a safe distance, you're somewhat insulated from the event and perhaps more likely to do something you'll later regret.
Before the current Administration came to power if you'd asked me that'd been my response. But now I see clearly why the Framers want the People to be able to protect themselves from their government. We should be very afraid of any government that wants us defenseless (especially the current bunch of jackboots and thugs).
I don't have a handgun for protection, but that's my choice; any city, county, state, or even federal government that tells its people that they may not possess a weapon to defend themselves takes upon that city, county, etc. the responsibility to defend its citizens in the manner the citizenry would if armed - even if that means stationing an armed officer at every family home 24/7. And quite frankly, even if the government could afford to spend that kind of money (our money), the prospect of a heavily armed governmental presence (especially in my home) scares me more than a little.
From the NYT:
"A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” "
OK - this guy is clearly an idiot.
I don't see what's so hard about "the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment could have read "Because the great purple snorklewhacker what lives in the sky might one day come down to eat us all, the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The why doesn't really matter, what matters is the what - the "right of the the people to keep and bear arms."
1) All the time of the framing of the Constitution, *all* weapons were civilians weapons;
2) The Framers definitely intended to protect the civilian's right to rebel against an oppressive government; and,
3) Everywhere else in the Constitution the phrase "the People" refers to the general populace.
The Framers intended for the power to reside in the People, not the government, and did not want a national standing army. You may fault them for not foreseeing M16's, Mini guns, and AK-47's, but their intention was clearly for a weak central government.
The founders put in a mechanism to adapt to changes they knew they couldn't foresee - amending the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment doesn't make sense anymore, you say? Fine. But the solution is to go into the document granting the *right* of every citizen to keep and bear arms and amend it to reflect the "current reality."
Simply pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does, or passing laws obviously in conflict with it, aren't solutions. There's a process, and it has to be used.
Or do you want the Government deciding ad hoc what rights we have?
Before the current Administration came to power if you'd asked me that'd been my response. But now I see clearly why the Framers want the People to be able to protect themselves from their government. We should be very afraid of any government that wants us defenseless (especially the current bunch of jackboots and thugs).
I don't have a handgun for protection, but that's my choice; any city, county, state, or even federal government that tells its people that they may not possess a weapon to defend themselves takes upon that city, county, etc. the responsibility to defend its citizens in the manner the citizenry would if armed - even if that means stationing an armed officer at every family home 24/7. And quite frankly, even if the government could afford to spend that kind of money (our money), the prospect of a heavily armed governmental presence (especially in my home) scares me more than a little.
From the NYT:
"A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” "
OK - this guy is clearly an idiot.
I don't see what's so hard about "the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment could have read "Because the great purple snorklewhacker what lives in the sky might one day come down to eat us all, the right of the the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The why doesn't really matter, what matters is the what - the "right of the the people to keep and bear arms."
1) All the time of the framing of the Constitution, *all* weapons were civilians weapons;
2) The Framers definitely intended to protect the civilian's right to rebel against an oppressive government; and,
3) Everywhere else in the Constitution the phrase "the People" refers to the general populace.
The Framers intended for the power to reside in the People, not the government, and did not want a national standing army. You may fault them for not foreseeing M16's, Mini guns, and AK-47's, but their intention was clearly for a weak central government.
The founders put in a mechanism to adapt to changes they knew they couldn't foresee - amending the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment doesn't make sense anymore, you say? Fine. But the solution is to go into the document granting the *right* of every citizen to keep and bear arms and amend it to reflect the "current reality."
Simply pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly does, or passing laws obviously in conflict with it, aren't solutions. There's a process, and it has to be used.
Or do you want the Government deciding ad hoc what rights we have?