mikesbo comments

Haha, Rat, good one...

"So that said, why didn't that law prevent the carnage this time?"

I wasn't there. Some have said people were unarmed because it was a liberal event. I speculated it may have been a "gun-free zone." Perhaps, as Zenny says, it was "unsafe" to fire, so those with CCW acted responsibly and physically restrained him (which disproves other comments I've seen here) rather than risk hitting others. I don't know.

"How was it that noone else was armed?"

I can only speculate, but it's likely it was a "gun-free zone", which means the criminal was the only one armed.

The last was to Paul, although clipped again for some reason.

As I said, if 1 in 5 in that crowd had been armed, the shooter, with his semi-auto G19, would have fired 1 or 2 rounds as opposed to emptying the magazine, as I believe he did, before being stopped.

"In an age of exploration and flintlocks, they won."

That was state-of-the-art at that time. 2A was intended to give the average citizen, males of fighting age (~16-50), the militiaman, the same weapon as the army. That would be laws, M14's, P90's, M16's, M1A's, M60's, and all the rest today.

"You can't just chop it in half and cherry pick the bit you like."

I most certainly am not ignoring any part of it:

"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."

"regulated", does not mean government controlled. "Militia" refers, as I have said, to all men of fighting age. "the right" is not granted here, but acknowledged as pre-existing. "shall not be infringed", what could be more clear?

"Laws change. Laws get adjusted."

This is my point. 2A reads exactly as it did when written. It has not been changed. If you don't like it. Change it. Remove it. Don't ignore and violate it.

"You are talking about anarchy."

It is you who are talking about anarchy. I'm talking about the government, everyone, under the rule of law, not ignoring it because they don't "feel" it applies any longer.

"A 33-round magazine really does effectivly turn the Glock 19 semi-automatic (which has an eight round minimum) into an assault weapon."

No. You could argue that a Glock 18 is an assault "weapon" (many would argue it is not, owing to the low power of the 9x19 round, short barrel, etc.), but key to the definition is being select-fire, semi and full-automatic.

Gun control/registration is the first step to confiscation. History proves it. For you to say, "It will be different this time!", is not convincing for me.

But fine, as I have said, gun control is illegal. I'm not pouting about "losing my guns", I'm talking about who will watch the watchers, ones who have broken their own laws.

And then there is liberty. Is the government your servant or you its? Safety? "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Who is responsible for your safety? Your family's? The government, or you? Benjamin Franklin had an excellent quote on that topic:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If you disagree with all of this then I say you're right to have left the US. Good luck to you.

"dang it, its not that hard to understand."

Exactly, and yet you don't get it. REALITY, as you put it, is a government outside the rule of law. You may be OK with that, but I'm not. The constitution was never meant to be read and interpreted only by the supreme court (the government), but by everyone. In fact, all elected officials, and military personnel for that matter, are sworn to uphold it, defend it.

koriyamaboy, I'm sorry, but you're not even making sense.

"Gun control is not only or even mostly about taking away guns."

You're fooling yourself.

Even if you yourself actually feel this way, others, most I would say, don't. Even if these others also feel the way you do, the job is then to convince, and name calling and bickering is not the road to reaching that goal. And even if that were to succeed, it's still against the law.

The fact we've allowed our government to dance around and violate one of its central tenants is where my concern lies. If you want to force gun registration, or to make it illegal, then change the law, the constitution. I'll fight that effort, but if you win out, I won't have a leg to stand on.

If it can get away with violating that one, the one inserted originally to control it, to make it fear its citizens, what then can it not get away with? Again, quis custodiet, ipsos custodes.

I forgot one, although I already answered it:

"What the devil have you got against registration?"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

scissors,

"In fact, if he had not had a gun at all, he would not have even tried it!"

Did you miss the part about illegality and criminals?

"Gun control espouses either option."

So you seriously believe outlawing black BMWs would reduce gang crime?

"A stauch defender of the 2nd amendment can be pro-gun control!"

'shall not be infringed' means just that. If you don't like it, work to get it changed, but don't fool yourself, gun-control is about getting to gun confiscation, at which point only criminals will have them. Even if, in fantasy land, you could confiscate them all, you wouldn't solve the problem.

koriyamaboy, perhaps you forget how and why this country was formed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Foggia, we already have gun control, however illegal (unconstitutional), gun registration, background checks, the whole bit.

Rat, read my first post.

If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them. The UK has banned and removed guns from its "subjects." It's violent crime rate has gone up.

Burakumin, don't exaggerate, a handgun would have sufficed. If 1 in 5 in that crowd would have been so armed, the true nutjob here, the murderer, would have been stopped after one or two shots. In fact, if nutjob had known the crowd would be armed, it's likely he would not have even tried it.

Reap what you sow indeed.

taiko,

"the following paragraph strongly implies that this guy's behaviour is acceptable"

I think we can assume the writer was being sarcastic.

Tokyo wants the bases. Okinawans are divided. It's their island, though, so if they say they don't then remove them.

I've said this before, but the US should leave all of its current foreign bases and return home. We can't afford this any longer.

I voted for Ron Paul as well, and if he had won, we'd be out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and pulling out of Okinawa, Korea, and everywhere else we're blowing billions of dollars per year to create enemies.

Of course, this is why he could never have won...

Marion, Okinawa was well on it's way to being what it is today 20 years ago. I was there too. It has become much more so since, especially the former base areas which look like mainland Japan (this is what they do when they get their former base land back?), but it's only a matter degree. I've seen pictures from the 50's and 60's, and this is perhaps what you lament losing.

Biglittleman,

I was saying the US and UK are both in decline.

Sorry, in decline in the same way the US (and the west, really) is in decline.

Thenewfront, I think you're way off there. Japan has centuries of history and culture (look at all of those historical and samurai dramas) on which its culture is based. It's funny you should mention the Britain, because that is the western culture most people would say is most similar to Japanese. Unfortunately, Britain is also similarly in decline.

I think there is another explanation for what I'll call the decline in interest in the US. The US, and the west in general, is itself in decline. The quality of Hollywood movies pales in comparison with its past, as does nearly every other, especially social/cultural, aspect. Music in particular.

I would say the Japanese are becoming less interested in the US, like the rest of the world, because the US no longer dominates economically and culturally as it once did. The 20th century was the American century, and it is over.