The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread

[Douchepool]

The world could use a few more happy little trees.

[Bean Bag]

THAT is why the right to self-defense is important now, more than it has been in a LONG time.

Reminds me of something I had to say to a buddy of mine.  The total opposite of a redneck, but still a guy who went from getting drunk and saying, "tomorrow, let's go to a gun range!" -- to getting drunk and saying, "but dude, they've banned them in Australia -- it's time we do that here!!"

He of course dropped the "it's not 1776 anymore -- it's different now" line of BS.  I said "I know.  And isn't it amazing how they knew -- way back then -- that this day would come?"

It's why they wrote it down.  And it's not for "hunting."    

[Mike's Beard]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

[KDS]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

You got it.  When somebody gets stabbed, you don't hear anyone trying to ban knives. 

[alf wiedersehen]

I wonder how many gun owners have joined this nation's well-regulated militia.

[Bean Bag]

I think it would be more interesting to know how many NON-gun owners joined the militia.

[Bean Bag]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

You got it.  When somebody gets stabbed, you don't hear anyone trying to ban knives. 

They will eventually.  There's really only two natural human reactions to this -- ban it or beef up security.  Get rid of the problem or fight it.  But we're being denied one.  The quickest and easiest one.  Security.

Shouldn't that alert everyone, to just who you're getting into league with -- when you start entertaining and fantasizing their wholly unreasonable desire to "control it better."  At some point, shouldn't people begin to feel like they're being used?  Yes... probably to move the ball in the direction of banning.  But... isn't that's creepy?  Because that means they're fine with you getting killed (if need be) to move the ball in their direction.

Just me I suppose.  But I wouldn't feel good about myself by passing another law and watching politicians pat themselves on the back.  I don't get the whole acting, posturing and performing in play thing.  Not when we're supposed to be addressing reality.  That's NBC TV fantasy.

[filledeplage]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

Wasn't there a mass shooting in Canada at a House of Commons?

The whole legal system in America is based on types of duties and defenses to defend oneself from deadly force.  Every state has a different set of laws. And the state statutory schemes were not set up by the boys (framers of the Constitution) in wigs who owned plantations.  The Model Penal Code was put together in the 1960's.

Especially when you have the "castle doctrine" as in a wo/man's home is "her/his castle."  The U.S. is at war.  The citizenry and some military and law enforcement have had their private information breached and in the hands of ISIS.  

Nice for Hillary to want to get guns off the menu while she's has 24/7 lifetime secret service patrols and told the guys in Benghazi to "stand down." Americans should not be told to "stand down."  It has been argued that the right to "keep arms...is a safeguard to liberty and the alternative to a standing 'well-regulated militia" is the people are trained to bear arms. T. Cooley, Constitutional limitations, General Principles of Constitutional Law, 281-282.

And from Cooley, Justice Story, " The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people, to resist and triumph over them." (Meaning invaders such as terrorists.)

That kid (those shooters) are is among a whole class of disturbed kids who was/were not tracked in the schools, or post graduation.  Mental health facilities are being closed with dangerous persons are released every day, due to overcrowding, and these drugs that cause violence or suicidal tendencies so much so that the disclaimers are on TV! Every doctor who treated him/them should be called on the carpet to answer as to why there was no supervision and treatment.  Including the military doctors who or officials who booted him from basic training. These individuals should not be in the mainstream of society with risk factors for violence.  They will be locked up, now but it is too late for the victims.

Little story in point... the only time in my life that I've had a gun in my hand was about 30 years ago when I took one away from a 10 year old in school.  He brought it in for "show and tell" ( for his buddies who had dared him.) (It was his father's and I expect he maybe had a permit.) I  initially thought it was a toy after some of the kids in line told met that this kid "had a gun" - "a real one" and called the kid's bluff while I "got in his face" and told him to give it to me, which he did.  (It was dumb of me.) Very dumb.

It was never reported to the police.  The school swept It under the rug.  They wanted to create a false impression of "school safety."  A metal detector would have caught that.

So, if the people in authority aren't doing their jobs for several decades what is the reasonably foreseeable outcome? More dysfunction and more bad outcomes.

Sadly, churches and schools and every public event will need to have someone trained and on deck for the potential event of a shooting.  Bad and sick people will find a way to get a gun.  The normal law abiding citizens shouldn't be deprived of their Constitutional right to self-defense.  
These pastors and school officials need to get firearms training to defend the students and churchgoers.  The right to education and worship is being infringed upon.  Those are protected constitutional rights as well. It is more that the second amendment.  It crosses over into fourteenth amendment with privileges and immunities, and who are the "people of the several states" invoking the first, ninth and tenth, as they overlap.

Think we don't need protection from enemy aliens as contemplated by the framers of the Constitution? Two dates come to mind...9/11 and Boston Marathon 2013.  The anti 2nd amendment lobby are not going after the failure of health care who can report to the authorities if there is an imminent threat to the public and for responsibility prescribing medication.

And for the Army to follow up on a high-risk dischargee. Was he being treated at a VA? That would be interesting to know.  He could have had some rights to VA treatment. Or VA "mistreatment."

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  JMHO of course.  

[the captain]

There are several points being made in this thread I'd like to comment on or challenge, but as I'm just quickly checking in on my phone, for now I want only to raise one: I see people expressing concern about guns being taken away, about some lobby coming to take them away, but I rarely see anyone (in this thread or elsewhere) actually suggesting that. (Yes, you can find outliers who suggest anything, but I'm talking mainstream.) so it seems to me that's just a conspiracy theory, right there with the Texans recently convinced that military exercises there were actually Obama coming to invade (and take their guns, of course). Which--surprise--didn't happen.

My point is, I don't see this as all or nothing.

And my questions are:
- do you think the status quo is unacceptable?
- do you agree that inconsistencies in regulation (e.g gun show loophole) should be addressed (without respect to the actual resolution for our purposes)?
- do you think any regulation is required / helpful?
- if yes to the last point, can you outline examples?

[SMiLE Brian]

Captain, I agree that some type of regulation is needed like the 1990s assault weapons ban (who the f*** uses an uzi with a silencer or M16 with a 100 round drum for "fun")

[filledeplage]

Captain, I agree that some type of regulation is needed like the 1990s assault weapons ban (who the f*** uses an uzi with a silencer or M16 with a 100 round drum for "fun")

Where do you think he learned or may have learned how to shoot an assault weapon?

Basic Training. For war.

[Douchepool]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

You got it.  When somebody gets stabbed, you don't hear anyone trying to ban knives. 

I don't know if correlation necessarily implies causation in this case (and the ones who think I'm wrong will deny it until they're blue in the mouth); I don't think it's any real surprise that this has escalated under the millennial generation. America's descent into immorality and degeneracy snowballed under the baby boomers and under the millennials positively dwarfs that which occurred under the baby boomers.

People are being force-fed a diet of "tolerance" (a euphemism for "acceptance") at the expense of individual liberty. Gender no longer matters. People can have their bodies mutilated (or, indeed, just put on a dress and claim they've changed genders) and be afforded the idiotic label of "hero." Women have been sold the farce that being something other than successful nurturers is infinitely more desirable and that men are their mortal enemies. Men have been sold a similarly farcical notion that being softer and more feminine is infinitely more desirable and that women know best first and foremost. People are being conditioned to accept degeneracy or risk their lives or livelihoods. College campuses have become feminized social justice centers where everyone chooses to be offended and no one wants to be enlightened. Definitions have become fluid and change at random depending on the mental capacity of the individuals who chose to be offended. Children no longer are the products of their parents; they belong to "society" and society must do what it can to protect them from their parents.

In short, many people are raised to be confused and angry adult children who react violently to the slightest transgression and blame others for the genetic hands they've been dealt. The ones who violently act out are commonly millennials and I haven't seen a single case where these lawless thugs weren't somehow retarded or otherwise challenged in some way.

Should these behaviors or actions should be prohibited by government mandate? Progressives might say they should be encouraged and conservatives might say they should be prohibited. I'm in the middle. While many of these behaviors are inherently ridiculous and the product of bored adult children who have no idea how good they have it, they should not be prohibited. These behaviors should be dealt with in such a way where respect for the individual comes first and foremost. I'm not advocating throwing anyone in asylums or demanding them cast out of society. Nothing works like good old-fashioned ostracism. Let the chips fall where they may. In the end, people will surround themselves with like-minded individuals. The cultural Balkanization of today is not working. Sooner or later a crunch is going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mike's Beard]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

Wasn't there a mass shooting in Canada at a House of Commons?

Good thing I said 'all that often' and not 'never'. 
No country is crime free but it does seem like every other month some nut with a gun goes on a rampage in the USA. People have to ask themselves - why?

[filledeplage]

It's a people problem first and foremost. You don't hear of Canadians going off on killing sprees all that often, do you?

Wasn't there a mass shooting in Canada at a House of Commons?

Good thing I said 'all that often' and not 'never'. 
No country is crime free but it does seem like every other month some nut with a gun goes on a rampage in the USA. People have to ask themselves - why?

MB - as between the U.S. and Canada, I think Canada is more transparent.  They are more forthcoming with the chemical safety (we call them MSDS workplace lists) and that kind of workplace policy seems to be across the board. 

They may be better at follow up and supervision of mentally dangerous individuals and tracking school kids who have big problems who are just "let loose" at 18 and get no adult services.  Parents have a high bar to get custody of an adult in a compromised medical condition.  I think the Canadians are not as lax as the U.S. JMHO   

[alf wiedersehen]

I don't know if correlation necessarily implies causation in this case (and the ones who think I'm wrong will deny it until they're blue in the mouth); I don't think it's any real surprise that this has escalated under the millennial generation. America's descent into immorality and degeneracy snowballed under the baby boomers and under the millennials positively dwarfs that which occurred under the baby boomers.

People are being force-fed a diet of "tolerance" (a euphemism for "acceptance") at the expense of individual liberty. Gender no longer matters. People can have their bodies mutilated (or, indeed, just put on a dress and claim they've changed genders) and be afforded the idiotic label of "hero." Women have been sold the farce that being something other than successful nurturers is infinitely more desirable and that men are their mortal enemies. Men have been sold a similarly farcical notion that being softer and more feminine is infinitely more desirable and that women know best first and foremost. People are being conditioned to accept degeneracy or risk their lives or livelihoods. College campuses have become feminized social justice centers where everyone chooses to be offended and no one wants to be enlightened. Definitions have become fluid and change at random depending on the mental capacity of the individuals who chose to be offended. Children no longer are the products of their parents; they belong to "society" and society must do what it can to protect them from their parents.

In short, many people are raised to be confused and angry adult children who react violently to the slightest transgression and blame others for the genetic hands they've been dealt. The ones who violently act out are commonly millennials and I haven't seen a single case where these lawless thugs weren't somehow retarded or otherwise challenged in some way.

Ephebiphobia: the inaccurate, exaggerated and sensational characterization of young people.

This is some of the craziest sh*t I've ever read. When did gender ever matter? Do you honestly think there's a fine, diving line between what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman? There isn't. Gender identity is a construct of society. It's the thing that says it's not okay for men to wear pink, but women should wear pink. It doesn't mean anything, it's just some arbitrary rules that people made up because people have to be separate, I guess.

People that actually have to change genders despite having to face judgement and ridicule from people for their decisions have immense courage. These people are not accepted, yet they try to lead a life that will make them happy. F*** everyone who makes their life harder just because they don't think it's normal. You should be happy you don't have to deal with that absolutely terrible situation. "The expense of individual liberty", my ass. You're the one criticizing these people for trying to lead their own life.

Why is it bad that women should desire something beyond what patriarchal norms tell them? Jesus, it's like you think they should be happy with their roles as soil waiting to be fertilized.

This stuff about colleges being "social justice centers" is utter bullshit. People go to college to get degrees, not so they can hang out and be politically correct together. I know what I'm talking about--I'm in college. Right now. God, this is absurd. I've noticed a real fear of education from some people. How is it you're blind to the connection between "enlightened minds" and "social justice"?

Oh, we got "retarded" in there at the end. Wonderful.

For Christ's sake, thank goodness for millennials actually looking outside of themselves and wanting to make things better for people, rather than sitting in their towers of judgement, casting aspersions upon people looking to be different.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Is football still played by the rules of 1905 ?

Are women still denied the vote ?

Is slavery still legal ?

No ? Then why do a small cadre of very, very stupid people (NRA, that's you) still insist in applying a 1791 ruling to events in 2015 ?  The 2nd Amendment doesn't, as many assume, provide for the right to bear arms - that's incidental - rather it provided for something the US desperately needed at the time, "a well-regulated militia". Irrespective of whether any such militia is still required (NRA, here's a clue - the US now has an army, navy and airforce), I'm thinking that going into a classroom and blowing away completely innocent people just because... well, just because, kinda strains the definition of "well-regulated".

Comparing gun ownership to women being denied the vote or slavery is an apples and oranges comparison - gun ownership does not lead to a victim. If we're going to pick and choose what "ancient" rights should be done away with, we'd better be careful. I mean hey, stuff like freedom of speech, the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to face your accuser, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are also so 1790s as well. Do they also have no place in modern, progressive PC society? A lot of politicians think so...and so do a lot of Americans. THAT is why the right to self-defense is important now, more than it has been in a LONG time.

As I made clear, I wasn't equating gun ownership with female sufferage or emancipation, rather I was pointing out that to apply a late 18th century ruling to an early 21st century situation - as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep - is certifiably insane. Said amendment was a late 1700s solution to a late 1700s problem. Freedom of speech - another widely abused right - is eternal. Again, the 2nd Amendment is nothing to do with self-defence nor any right to bear arms, and everything to do with the security of a fledgling nation. Does the US still have desperate need of a well-regulated militia or minutemen ? I'm thinking... not. One more point: exactly when did any of the latest murders have anything to do with self-defence ?

[the captain]

For us here in Australia the solution is breathtakingly simple.

Does anyone here know the obvious pros or cons associated with following Australia's lead here in America? I mean, given that there are 300+ million accessible firearms in the United States, I don't see the solution here being as breathtakingly simple...but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I can't speak to Australia's situation, only knowing the broadest of outlines. (I don't follow anything about Australia except their national team in basketball. And that just because, well, it's basketball and they have one.) But the primary "con" of a buyback program here is really obvious: too many people have, and want to have, guns. Whatever the inherent rightness or wrongness of that, when a critical mass of the population feels strongly about X Topic, the government has to either follow suit or at least fool people into thinking they're following suit. As it stands, nearly all incumbents favoring such a thing would be voted out at the public's earliest opportunity and, more drastically than that, some small (but large enough to be dangerous) fraction/faction of the American people would defend their right to bear arms by bearing arms. There would be immense civil unrest resulting in serious violence. From a policy standpoint, the rightness or wrongness of being armed or not is almost irrelevant in deciding whether to do a massive guns buyback: it simply could not happen without the public itself dramatically changing.

Further, the second amendment does indeed exist. It's controversial. It's worded so badly as to hint that maybe the founders hoped they could confuse everyone into thinking they got their way. (Wait, the founders were compromising their diverse ideologies? Fucking heresy!) So the only options are a judicial opinion that dramatically alters the current understanding of what the second amendment means--not going to happen in the Roberts court--or a new amendment to overturn the second, which is even less likely to happen for reasons partly outlined above.

This is a good point to say--again--that virtually nobody in this country is actually calling for that (despite fear-mongering comments otherwise). Changes to background checks, limits to ammunition purchases, or restrictions on types of weapons that can be owned are not remotely close to a full reversal of that right as currently interpreted.

Opinions, of course, change. Twenty years ago, gay marriage seemed absurd even to most supporters of gay rights. The past decade in particular was a true sea change on that topic, regardless of how one feels about the summer's results. (There's a thread for that.) So it's possible that there could be some turning point at which Americans begin, en masse, relinquishing their individual right to own firearms in the interest of a perceived greater safety or good.

But without that, a dramatic change is not going to happen.

Hope that at least partly answers (via one man's opinion) your good question, rab2591.

[the captain]

Done!  If we want to "better protect people" -- the solution is easy.  Protect them.  Put a tank at every school.  Or whatever.  Done.  I'd sleep better, wouldn't you?

This idea is something we do hear proposed from time to time (ok, not usually with tanks   ). But let's think about the cost--tax dollars, mind you--of that scenario. I very hasty Internet search--https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84--shows that a few years ago, there were about 135,000+ total schools in the USA (including public, private, and post-secondary institutions). I know of small towns that have no police force whatsoever because they haven't got the money, and I'm sure this is replicated in rural areas around the nation. So even hiring one full-time security guard--forget about any robust security program or force--would be prohibitively expensive. Of course, larger districts would require far bigger security forces. The poorest (urban) schools have the least ability to pay for such forces, and a big chunk of public school funding as I understand it usually comes from local property taxes. So the resulting funding would be inverse of the most likely need, with wealthy suburban districts well prepared for the very occasional school shooter, while the urban schools would be underfunded for the rampant gang violence (not to mention the very occasional school shooter). Rural districts would be similarly underfunded, if statistically less likely to have the problem (there being less kids and fewer gangs).

That's one challenge I have on that: who pays? It seems that the conservatives most typically behind a lack of gun controlling legislation are also low-tax types, and this would be expensive.

There's also the question of further arming the state to act against its citizens. Libertarian types would typically be wary of giving yet another opportunity for the state to use deadly force on the population. Of course, after successful acts of terrorism, nobody would question the actions the state would have taken. But here, we'd be talking about a wholly different situation, a situation where almost by definition the state's violence happens before the citizen's violence is carried out. The questions we see around the nation already about police violence would be worse.

Both of these points are made for purposes of discussion, not ideology.

[the captain]

You got it.  When somebody gets stabbed, you don't hear anyone trying to ban knives. 

First of all, I do think it's noteworthy that you also don't really hear about anyone trying to ban guns. It just rarely comes up. Enacting some sort of restrictions or regulations aren't the same as banning. Not even close.

But the substance of the matter seems to me obvious: knives are tools with numerous nonviolent uses; guns are tools with one use. You can't make dinner without a knife. But without a gun, you can do pretty much everything other than commit violence with a gun.

Of course, you can commit violence without a gun--such as with your example of a knife. But a knife-wielding criminal isn't going to kill a few dozen students or a dozen movie-goers before he's stopped.

[the captain]

For Christ's sake, thank goodness for millennials actually looking outside of themselves and wanting to make things better for people, rather than sitting in their towers of judgement, casting aspersions upon people looking to be different.

I have to question that sentiment, Bubbly Waves. I think history would at least imply that it's not so much millenials in particular as young generations in general. There's a famous quote (probably falsely, I understand) attributed to W. Churchill along the lines of "if you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 35, you have no brain." Whoever said it and discounting the specifics, it seems that every generation undergoes the same basic shift. As people get older, get married, make babies, and obtain property, they tend to get more conservative. Presumably the emotional logic is, it's easy to share when you have nothing to share; the more you have (and the more mouths to feed), the harder that becomes to do. "I earned it, he didn't." That kind of thing.

Frankly I don't think millenials are different than anyone else in the big picture. There are the specifics of their time, of course. But they're dumb in the way young people tend to be dumb. They're smart in the way young people tend to be smart. Et cetera.

Sincerely,

A Very Late Gen-Xer
(aka, what was once the equivalent of a millenial, but now sometimes is sore in the morning for no apparent reason)

[alf wiedersehen]

I have to question that sentiment, Bubbly Waves. I think history would at least imply that it's not so much millenials in particular as young generations in general.[There's a famous quote (probably falsely, I understand) attributed to W. Churchill along the lines of "if you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 35, you have no brain." Whoever said it and discounting the specifics, it seems that every generation undergoes the same basic shift. As people get older, get married, make babies, and obtain property, they tend to get more conservative. Presumably the emotional logic is, it's easy to share when you have nothing to share; the more you have (and the more mouths to feed), the harder that becomes to do. "I earned it, he didn't." That kind of thing.

Frankly I don't think millenials are different than anyone else in the big picture. There are the specifics of their time, of course. But they're dumb in the way young people tend to be dumb. They're smart in the way young people tend to be smart. Et cetera.

I don't disagree with you. You could substitute "millennials" for "young people" in my sentence, if you wish.

[the captain]

I have to question that sentiment, Bubbly Waves. I think history would at least imply that it's not so much millenials in particular as young generations in general.[There's a famous quote (probably falsely, I understand) attributed to W. Churchill along the lines of "if you're not a liberal at 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 35, you have no brain." Whoever said it and discounting the specifics, it seems that every generation undergoes the same basic shift. As people get older, get married, make babies, and obtain property, they tend to get more conservative. Presumably the emotional logic is, it's easy to share when you have nothing to share; the more you have (and the more mouths to feed), the harder that becomes to do. "I earned it, he didn't." That kind of thing.

Frankly I don't think millenials are different than anyone else in the big picture. There are the specifics of their time, of course. But they're dumb in the way young people tend to be dumb. They're smart in the way young people tend to be smart. Et cetera.

I don't disagree with you. You could substitute "millennials" for "young people" in my sentence, if you wish.

OK, then. I think we more or less agree. The young of every era have a fire for what they see as justice. Sometimes it's ill- or misinformed, sometimes it's right on. But they do tend to fight (once riled up).

[18thofMay]

Cool story guys... YOU WILL NEVER get out of this without facing reality. Another day another wasted life.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/nthamerica/2015/10/06/boy-shoots-dead-8-year-old--over-puppy-.html

[Douchepool]

Ephebiphobia: the inaccurate, exaggerated and sensational characterization of young people.

Is it so inaccurate? I'm a millennial. I've seen it firsthand. I'm criticizing my own generation.

This is some of the craziest sh*t I've ever read. When did gender ever matter? Do you honestly think there's a fine, diving line between what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman? There isn't. Gender identity is a construct of society. It's the thing that says it's not okay for men to wear pink, but women should wear pink. It doesn't mean anything, it's just some arbitrary rules that people made up because people have to be separate, I guess.

Yes, there is absolutely a fine, dividing line between what being a man and being a woman means. Gender roles worked for thousands of years; it is only recently that this has been turned on its head. Whether we like it or not we have certain expectations based upon our genders. Turning that on its head has not worked; people who think they'll get ahead by only impressing themselves are kidding themselves.

People that actually have to change genders despite having to face judgement and ridicule from people for their decisions have immense courage. These people are not accepted, yet they try to lead a life that will make them happy. F*** everyone who makes their life harder just because they don't think it's normal. You should be happy you don't have to deal with that absolutely terrible situation. "The expense of individual liberty", my ass. You're the one criticizing these people for trying to lead their own life.

People are due acceptance because they decide they want to change their gender? NO ONE is due acceptance for any reason. That's the fairest and most equality-minded deal anyone is ever going to get. It's "so terrible" to decide to "change" one's gender. Maybe I'm a smidge biased in this regard because I spent four years of my life in high school with one of those self-loathing jokers (in this case, a guy who looked 100% like a human male yet in his own twisted mind was packing a vagina) who seemed to have no problem calling me a blueboarder yet was ready to bring the whole world down if people dared jab back. And we *HAD* to be nice to him because something something misogyny (a guy bitching about misogyny is GOING to be laughed at in an all-boys Catholic school, by the way), something something transphobia, something something misgendering...you get the picture. He did end up changing his gender, of course; he also preferred women on top of it...so it's funny how "I" was the blueboarder in that regard. Interesting how that works. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I do not intend on being fooled twice.

Why is it bad that women should desire something beyond what patriarchal norms tell them? Jesus, it's like you think they should be happy with their roles as soil waiting to be fertilized.

I don't know what country you call home, but here in America and throughout Western civilization women have it better than just about anywhere else in the world. Women CAN be whatever they want to be in Western civilization. That's not oppression. Those who think women are oppressed in Western civilization should spend a year in Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia and tell me what they find. I bet they won't think the same way about "the evil patriarchy" afterwards.

This stuff about colleges being "social justice centers" is utter bullshit. People go to college to get degrees, not so they can hang out and be politically correct together. I know what I'm talking about--I'm in college. Right now. God, this is absurd. I've noticed a real fear of education from some people. How is it you're blind to the connection between "enlightened minds" and "social justice"?

I've been through private and community college. Safe words, triggers (and just about everything triggers some college students), "rape culture" (one of the damnedest things I've ever had the displeasure of entering into my brain in my life), and, everyone's current favorite, "allies." That was a goodly portion of the discourse. There IS a disturbing trend among some college students where they are unwilling to enlighten themselves, be enlightened, or broaden their horizons. Question their logic? "Triggered." Check out a woman walking past you on campus? "Rape." Tell a politically incorrect joke? "You're not an ally."

For people who hallucinate such enlightenment, open-mindedness, and, well, TOLERANCE, they're more backwards than conservatives. And when generally progressive comedians agree with that notion, we should be wondering just what in the hell is going on within college campuses, especially those funded by taxes. Ironic that the "trigger"-happy generation supports increased gun control.

Oh, we got "retarded" in there at the end. Wonderful.

What descriptor for murderous psychopaths with mental capacities akin to being up sh*t creek without a paddle will upset the least amount of people? I'm sure the families of the victims of said murderous psychopaths think a lot worse of them beyond the dreaded "R-word."

For Christ's sake, thank goodness for millennials actually looking outside of themselves and wanting to make things better for people, rather than sitting in their towers of judgement, casting aspersions upon people looking to be different.

What in the hell have millennials done to make things better for people? Create #hashtag campaigns and call themselves "allies" to the social injustice of the day? Give me a break. So now we're all different? I thought everyone is just like everyone else regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or what have you. Isn't that what all of these attempts to make things better for people have been about? To open doors and foster discussion and friendship? I mean hey, I'm not saying they can't do what they want to do. People will look, people will scoff, and people will judge. It's human nature, sadly. You figure out a way to counteract or even better human nature and believe me, I'll be right there with you in support.

As I made clear, I wasn't equating gun ownership with female sufferage or emancipation, rather I was pointing out that to apply a late 18th century ruling to an early 21st century situation - as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep - is certifiably insane. Said amendment was a late 1700s solution to a late 1700s problem. Freedom of speech - another widely abused right - is eternal. Again, the 2nd Amendment is nothing to do with self-defence nor any right to bear arms, and everything to do with the security of a fledgling nation. Does the US still have desperate need of a well-regulated militia or minutemen ? I'm thinking... not. One more point: exactly when did any of the latest murders have anything to do with self-defence ?

I'll start with your final question - murders are not examples of self-defense.

Said "late 18th century ruling" was derived, like much of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought (including the Constitution) from Magna Carta. Specifically, Section 61 of Magna Carta. The precedent was there long before it was written as part of the Bill of Rights.

The argument can be made that the "militia" is null and void since the United States has military forces, but the military does not answer to the public; they answer to the government. The "militia" exists separately from the military. The reasoning behind the individual right to keep and bear arms was that some of the Founders (James Madison in particular) saw a standing army that answers to the government as one of the greatest threats to the liberty of free individuals and a free state. Many of the Founders also understood and respected the fact that the greatest threat to liberty was government, hence the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. As sovereign, free individuals, we ALL (the Constitution says NOTHING about "Americans," remember) have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (both in the case of ourselves and that of others) against those who would dare attempt to usurp them. It is not a permission slip to go deer and duck hunting or pop off a few shots at beer cans or clay pigeons. It is a reminder to those who would attempt to usurp our liberties that free individuals will defend themselves by any means necessary from all enemies, foreign or domestic. The Founders understood above all that the greatest threats to liberty were domestic, not foreign; case in point, an eighteen-year struggle and revolution against John Bull himself - a "domestic" enemy.

Does the United States still have desperate need for the militia or minutemen? Probably not. The right to keep and bear arms existed before the United States and will exist afterwards. The Founders understood this, as did Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury and writer of Magna Carta.

[the captain]

I have some problems with that, TRBB.

Specifically, it seems like on one hand you are saying that gender roles should not be challenged because they have "worked for thousands of years." It seems contradictory, then, to celebrate how women are treated in America or elsewhere in Western civilization as opposed to elsewhere in the world, which you also do. I say this seems contradictory because the reason women have better situations in the Western world is precisely because of challenges to those traditional gender roles that have worked for thousands of years. It's in those other places where women are subservient to men, have restricted rights and freedoms, etc., usually all while also being shown token reverence and protection. In the Western world that changed, but it changed mostly in recent centuries.

So it seems to me that the traditional roles either worked for thousands of years and thus women's situations in the West are a deviance, or that the relatively newly established rules are a superior evolution out of the traditional roles that, by definition, weren't acceptable.

I'm probably not expressing myself clearly: I just got up. But I hope you get my point: the reason women have it "so good" in the West is because the roles that existed for thousands of years weren't acceptable.

The obvious extension from that line of thinking (or actually even a standalone thought) is, if there are other flaws on how things are here and now, the fact that there are others who have it worse somewhere isn't really an adequate reason not to address those flaws here. If everyone on the block beats and cheats on his wife except one guy, but that one guy just cheats on her, doesn't she have the right to do something about the cheating (regardless of the beating and cheating elsewhere)?

OK, off to work. Hopefully I'll be more coherent upon my return.