I'd be interested in what you think, if anything, that might be good legislation that would 1) have a good probability of cutting down on gun violence, and 2) that would not unduly infringe on 2nd amendment rights.
I'd be interested in reading that article. The wiki article on guns in Switzerland is very informative.
I don't agree with bundling the issue of gay marriage with your fears of an all out assault as you described, but gay marriage is just plain weird. I support the pairing and monogamous pledging between two people who want to build thier lives together but marriage between different sexes and marriage of the same sex is simply different. One reason I think many people have difficulty with gay marriage is because they confuse the legal and religious institutions of marriage, because they often go hand in hand. Marriage by the church has no legal and civil consequence. Try getting married at city hall and divorcing and tell the judge you had no church ceremony and see what happens. Alimony will happen plus a kick in the ass. However, the sexes are different. A monogamous pairing of a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a monogamous pairing between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I don't think that there should be a legal difference - two committed people should have the same rights and benefits from the state regardless of gender. I'd rather have gays pair up than cruise endlessly on the margins of society. But I think we ought to be willing to recognize and respect the difference we all know and feel exists between gay and hetero marriages. And that means using terms to describe it properly . Call it civil union, call it gay marriage, but calling it marriage takes an undue liberty and trespasses on a planet wide age old human institution that has been well defined for millenia. The right to pair and the institution of marriage can create a dissonance in the minds of many and we have to face the dissonance that exists and examine what it is without fear of be branded politically incorrect. Hetero pair bonding in hominids is probably older than homosexuality, but homosexuality is at least as old as Judeo Christian marriage. We can all live together and extend equal protection and equal rights under the law. But we can all go further and extend equal regard for each other as humans in a way that law cannot prescribe or demand. And in so doing we should respect and honor the traditional institution of marriage between the sexes and accept the new concept of gay marriage, but recognize the differences and let language properly describe those differences. If we are to grow and prosper as a society and a united people, we must be willing conserve, nurture and allow the growth of the best of what we have and be open to the new that change presents us.
Though not directed at me I'd like to answer. 1)Nationwide "constitutional carry" 2)Eliminate so called "gun free zones", they only invite mass murderers. 3)Institutionalize the mentally ill. 4)I wouldn't mind bringing back public torture and execution, but I don't see that happening.
Well just call it a consequence of you dipshits wanting to let big gubbermint poke it's nose into every fricken thing, issue, concept under the sun without limit. I think as you've stated before , don't like it ,fricken leave and don't let the door hit your sorry ass on the way out, just make sure you pay your tax penalty and surrender your citizenship first.
That would be the ever shrinking number of responsible productive tax payers. Utterly despised by most leftists.
Again, if you want to make things more "relevant" to your thoughts, amend the constitution and get the clarity you so desperately seek.
Do you understand the concept of a Republic? Republics are based on "Individual" rights compared to the group in a Democracy. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
That would be a good idea, but so difficult to do. You would have to initiate it in the States. You can't get any amendment through Congress right now, because a single senator can stop anything with the filibuster under the current rules. I'm OK with the Court's interpretation of the second amendment. I don't like some of their decisions, but that's my problem. Until Senate rules are changed, which will happen but I don't know when, we will be depending on the Court more than we should have to.