'Well-regulated' refers to the militia in the 2nd Amendment, not gun provisions. I think you'd need an amendment to the amendment to make that happen.

Ok, so, we sould become the United Socialist States of America. NOT. They will take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Typical liberal speak. And yes, taking all guns away is working real well in Europe. Just look at London a few months ago. Many people killed because they could NOT defend themselves.

I am for gun regulation (not control), but even I admit that the 2nd Amendment clearly implies an individual right

Charles Whitman a former Marine killed 16 people and wounded 32 others during a shooting rampage on and around the University of Texas campus on August 1, 1966 - I was 17 and ready to go to college at that time. I had no sense that the world was headed to the crazy time we have now. My previous 16 years were very Leave it to Beaver and it was the best this country had experienced and probably ever will. The music, the economy, friends/relations, were magic.

Also, the US needs to make every one of its citizens feel they're appreciated by granting everyone universal health care, access to higher education, and opportunites to rehabilitate themselves in prison or outside of prison, among other things.

...and what about free boob jobs for all women and free hair transplants for men, and don't forget to pass legislation to ensure it never rains, except on mutually agreed upon dates and times.

I'm all in favor of reasonable reform to our nation's gun laws, and health care needs to be tackled in a manner which actually fixes something. But we are not living in Shangrila, or in some version of Utopia. Not everybody is going to feel appreciated, or be successful, and when they are not, some of them are going to strike out at society.

We don't know the whys and hows that caused this man to walk up and shoot a police officer and then to take his own life. But chances are he mentally unbalanced, and perhaps even insane. You can't always spot such people before they act, and more damage may actually come from trying to do so.

Sad story. Tragic story. But not a reason to radically restructure our society.

I Think you All know I'm an independent by now. So I try to remain as Objective as possible. But I'll tell what's made me very angry about how the left handles these situations.

Every time someone is killed by a gun the liberals say "BAN GUNS, GUN CONTROL NAOO!!" When what they don't seem to understand is that if the young man hadn't had a gun, he probably would have just stabbed the officer to death. Or choked him or WHATEVER.

That's like saying if weban alcohol everyone will stop drinking, or if We ban drugs everyone will stop doing drugs! Sound's like a good idea right?

Oh, wait...No....

And another thing, the Bloody ATF was caught using the Fast and Furios Scandal to try and crack down on the second amendment! SO HELL NO THEY'RE not coming for my guns!

Also, the US needs to make every one of its citizens feel they're appreciated by granting everyone universal health care, access to higher education, and opportunites to rehabilitate themselves in prison or outside of prison, among other things.

This message has been brought to you by the Socialist States of America. What you describe is unacheivable and lunacy. Who would pay for all this? No you, someone else right? You do realize the Government doesn't make any money it only takes it from their citizens. What gives you or anyone else the right to someone else's money? Go back to your shanty town and take another dump in the fountain. Socialism has never worked, take a history lesson or two when you get out of that fountain.

BTW, this event proves nothing.

The NRA helped murder this officer by promoting the proliferation of handguns. Gun control works but the liars at the NRA put pressure on the cowardly politicians. This is not a Constitutional issue it is all political. See the man under the sheet. The NRA put him there. See the gun laws in VA. They cause murders up and down the East Coast. Osama Bin Laden only dreamed he could kill as many Americans as the NRA has.

@kilobyte: I'm not a liberal, and use my non-dimwit brain to see that our privilege of owning guns is not creating a safer society, and is making it more dangerous for all.

What does a country's economic system have to do with firearm legislation?

Conservatives need not be stupid, and must recognize that our right to bear arms has created a far less safe society than those in Europe. This is a good thing for you? There's evidence galore showing this. The only reason this is a partisan issue, is because you've made it that way.

The people who ignore the facts and truths are the dimwitted ones.

You idiots are all unwitting stooges for the NRA which is nothing more than a gun manufacturers trade organization. Of course many of our whoreish politicians have their tongues stuck in the NRA's ass crack. Especially the ones introducing legislation to REQUIRE people to carry guns. Yes they are out there. By the way there are plenty of "socialist" gun lovers. Further, this police officer was armed, how did that help him?

Really people?? This article is about how a police officer doing nothing more than protecting the Virginia Tech campus was killed and then the idiot killed himself. Do we really need to get into a political debate about whether people should or shouldn't carry guns?? It doesn't matter what the damn law or amendment right is, idiots will still carry guns and those same idiots will kill people with those guns!

Can we focus more on the fact that this poor man's family now has to suffer during the holidays without him? All because of some disturbed person. This person who decided to be a coward and then take his own life so this family will never have answers as to why their family member was taken. Y'all need to stop turning everything into a political debate and have some damn compassion.

RIP to a fellow brother in blue. May you rest in peace. Your end of duty watch may be over, but you have a bigger watch now, to look over your family. May they find comfort during this horrible time with the warmth of you standing beside them. God bless!

Would anyone feel better if he used a long gun to kill the officer? How about if he used Grandpas old 30-06 deer gun that he cut down with a $5 hack saw from Home Depot. Grow up and quit blaming a thing for what someone does. It just make you sound stupid.

Condolences to the families for their loss.

Now for my rant: Let's see....A police officer was shot and killed, and the gunman kills himself. The first thing that happens is typical:

All of the closet politicians, and soapbox ranters chime in so this incident can be turned into a pseudo- political whine fest. How about showing some class and comment on topic.

@MisterMo

Is that so? Then why does the UK have more violent crime than the US or South Africa? You need to pull your head out of your ass and do a little research. The nanny state "utopia" in Europe isn't all its cracked up to be.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Can you read? I was responding to the top comment which specifically mentioned social programs.

For someone who claims not to be a liberal, you sure type like one. We need guns for self defense and as a check on government. Why does the government want to take our guns so bad? Think about other regimes with gun contril; China, North Korea, Burma. The government wants out guns becuase government is terrified of a populace which can defend itself. The sad part is there are a bunch of sheep who buy right into its propaganda for a "safer" world.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

The word "liberal" is used so often and for every problem . . . imagined or real . . . under the sun . . . that it has lost any real meaning . . . and is now no more than the adult version of the children's bogeyman . . .

It's use is really little more than intellectual laziness and deserves no place in a credible argument . . .

@patrick1315

Spoken like a true liberal. I bet you've never made that argument when people were critcizing Tea Partiers and Republicans. What a hypocrite.

Olias of Sunhillow

Adopt "well regulated" gun provisions.

all kinds of background checks, a standardized psychological test for potential buyers, etc, etc, etc.

You mean like they did with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan over at Fort Hood?

Yeah, all that screening worked real well didn't it?

If all you gun fearing cowards really want to stop violent deaths, petition to have all motor vehicles banned. We had over 32,800 Americans die from motor vehicle accidents last year.

While I don't support banning all guns, I think it's a good idea to ban handguns. You see, shotguns are good for home defense and rifles are good for hunting. I think it's a great idea to have more powerful shotguns/rifles on sale, but other weapons are too likely to be abused.

Guns should be banned by type, not by power. Why should civilians be allowed to use automatic weapons when professional hunters can't even buy a sniper rifle to kill bears in one shot?

yo patrick1315, do you ever feel like your arguing with a brick wall, trying to educate these knuckle draggers that show up here every day?

we are a nation of over 330 million people; their are mental illness persons in our society; every time a crazy goes off and does such a horrible act with a firearm, all the anti-gun persons come out the wood work; we have many restrictions on who may possess a firearm; those who do not care about their life or the lives of others will always be able to get hold of a firearm; hell even the United States government was allowing shipments of guns to the Mexican cartel criminals, gun's are not the problem criminals are the problem .

@mikethespike . . . my profile on the local newspaper site is:

"The best part about stirring the pot is getting to lick the spoon . . ."

kilobyte1139 played his role perfectly, AND not only called me the bogeyman . . . (i.e. liberal) . . . but went on to finish his rant using his super powers to project what he imagines I may have posted or not posted. . . somewhere at some point in time then labels me a hypocrite for what exists only inside of his head . . . LOL he makes the game way too easy . . .

@kilobyte1139 . . . thanks for playing . . .



If you want to ban guns then you need a constitutional amendment to do so, as they did with prohibition (that one worked out real well, didn't it?).

It will take 2/3rds of the states to ratify that to make it law. Because of the the constitution lawmakers can not arbitrarily make guns illegal.

That being said, if you allow just one of your rights to be taken away then where does it stop? There is no stopping point. The government will see the populace as sheep and take all rights away.

I for one do not and will not own a gun of any kind, and yes, I am former military. But I will not accept the taking away of any right that is guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our forefathers may never have envisioned automatic weapons, but they did understand that the populace has a right and a duty to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. We do have certain rights that have been given to us that we must defend or lose them.

And the argument that if all the guns were taken away that this would not happen is just a joke. If a criminal wants a weapon he/she will get one. If you outlaw guns then it will just be another item that will be smuggled into the country, just as drugs and illegal aliens are.

If you think taking guns away is a sane thing to do then you are seriously mistaken. I have friends that use rifles, shotguns and other assorted weapons to put food on the table.

I may not believe in what you say, but I WILL defend to the death your right to say it. That is another right we have under the constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@patrick1315

What an idiot. One look at your profile and there are numerous posts where you rant on about the evil boodyman Republicans. Too easy? Look whose talking.

@kylo1339 . . . you are too amusing . . . one of the funniest things I ever experienced was all of the "family values" "conservative" types when their movement first emerged and they labeled themselves "TeaBaggers" until they figured out what that meant and to right themselves they re-annointed themselves as the "Tea Party" which still makes me laugh as I have a couple of neighbors . . . who keep telling me how neat this "swinger" club they belong to is . . . including "Tea Party" nights . . . there's nothing I can say or do to add further insult to injury . . .

On another note, you're going to have to step up your name calling to even get in the competition . . . I was a deputy sheriff here in the NW for over 31 years and I've been called much worse by way better than what you're bringing to the table . . . get with it or drop out . . .

There should be one of two things done:

1. Make it so that in order to own a firearm, you have to be a member of a well regulated and organized militia.

2. Ban handguns. But DO NOT ban shotguns and rifles, including auto-rifles. They are much less threat due to their size, thus keeping the gun laws the same for them should not constitute a problem.

A Universal health care system would make sure that someone like the guy who killed the police officer at VT, or the guy who shot the AZ congresswoman, would not go unnnoticed. As it is these crazies are walking about without supervision and waiting for the right moment to strike by hurting or killing a stranger, a family member or a friend.

Liberal gun laws where everyone is allowed to carry guns everywhere will do absolutely nothing to lower the number of gun deaths and solve the problem.

If you want to live in a socialist nanny state, apply for citizenship in Europe and don't let the door slam your ass on the way out.

Yeah, Kilobyte, one of those socialist nanny states, where the murder rate is a fraction of the U.S. rate, that would be horrible.

I presume the slain police officer had a gun. Didn't help him or deter the attack, did it?

Unfortunately, I agree with part of your original statement, "...that Americans can and will always possess firearms?", but that does not make this circumstance desirable, and the Second Amendment is not written in stone. Just as at least one other amendment was, it could [and should] be repealed. The circumstances which justified it have long since lapsed into history. I haven't seen a marauding Indian in many years; they tend to spend much of their time running casinos now.

I don't know about you, but I would GLADLY die for the chance to win back my freedom from you - ALL AND ANY OF YOU!!!!

You first, please. Do you really find life in modern America so terrible that you believe starting a shooting war is justified.

In your post you string a great many adverbs and adjectives together, but say little of any substance.

Are you going to start a revolution because somebody forces you to wear a seat belt?

What specific laws do you find so onerous?

We are forced to abide by whatever trivial, insane, petty, ineffective, intrusive, expensive, asinine law(s) the anal retentive megalomaniacs come up with with the ultimate penalty of rejecting said law being death.

What law or laws are these of which you speak, and who has paid the ultimate penalty?

The last person I know of who was executed under federal law was Timothy McVeigh, and if he did not deserve his punishment, I'd be hard pressed to say who does.

Need a background check in the D_Loominator aisle! Are you kidding me? All of that over a discussion over gun rights. The Founding Fathers would be mortified at some of the stuff people are justifying in their names.

Your pathetic reference to an armed society being a polite society and saying it's disproven is pure nonsense. No such thing as been proved since our society is not and never has armed all of us at once, nor have we armed ourselves that way. Your post is liberal drivel and utter idiocy.
If you want to be the government's pet, you go right ahead. Keep your nose out of my business, though. You clearly demonstrate the risk of using drugs like Ritalin, carelessly.

If you want to be the government's pet, you go right ahead. Keep your nose out of my business, though. You clearly demonstrate the risk of using drugs like Ritalin, carelessly.

...and you demonstrate the dangers of marriage between close relatives.

The slain policeman was armed, a firearms and defense instructor and army veteran; didn't seem to help him much.

Cap'nJim - Are you a troll? Are you just taking cheap shots at anyone who voices an opinion or conviction you don't like? The article wasn't about gun rights to begin with. And I never said anything about the "founding fathers" in my initial post. I will fight and die for freedom of my own volition and cognition. The founding fathers are already dead. You will have to kill me yourself to stop me when the time comes(or be a coward like most tyrants and let some militarized cop do it instead).

You want background? How about 18 years of military w/top secret clearance before having my most precious of civil rights unconstitutionally RAPED (the right to keep and bear children - not guns) simply because I have a penis and couldn't (or wouldn't) send a lawyers kids through law school just to buy them back.

@dman - I am tiring of your cheap sharpshooting DMAN. I challenge your personal integrity to argue exactly the points that both of us made to their logical conclusion right here. Please refrain from logical fallacy and cheap shots.

You first, please. Do you really find life in modern America so terrible that you believe starting a shooting war is justified.

Yes. After 18 years of military, I discovered that the government IS the DOMESTIC ENEMY of the Constitution. I left the military AND the country in a desperate attempt to be free. Unfortunately, I discovered that THERE ARE NO FREE COUNTRIES LEFT. So the only act that any freedom loving person can logically take is to fight it out here. Unfortunately, the constitution that limits government may as well be written on toilet paper. Then, the politicians could do literally what they have been doing virtually since even before the iron gall ink dried on the original copy of the constitution. In all of recorded history, man has NEVER been able to create a free and independent nation of free and independent people. The power of government is ALWAYS usurped by some tyrannical person, religion, oligarchy, or psychotic political system or systems (here, it's the corporate raiders vs the socialist psychos - no middle ground at all). The filthy rich and the dirt poor are BOTH stealing the money from the the hard working decent people who earned it. With such unmitigated tyranny as the patriot act, a sudden uprising into civil war is the only way revolution can happen. And THAT would even be used by the powers that be to gain MORE control. It is too late for us to fix it. When we fail financially from our 14 trillion dollar (and RAPIDLY increasing) government debt ( not to mention an equal personal debt), we will already be in civil war. Then, the USA will find itself broken and despondent.

In your post you string a great many adverbs and adjectives together, but say little of any substance.

Are you going to start a revolution because somebody forces you to wear a seat belt?

What specific laws do you find so onerous?

A mountain made of pebbles weighs about as much as a mountain made of solid rock. Delude yourself if you like, but a million forms of micro tyranny equals just plain tyranny. As I believe probably 90% of the laws out there are some form of corruption or self righteous imposition of some group or ideological position, it would not be feasible to list them all on this site. One of the most heinous forms of tyranny is that done "for my own welfare". What gives you the right to violate my personal space with your seat belt law? Who the hell are YOU to tell me how to raise MY children?

Also, I submit to you that you should look up the word hypocrisy with reference to substance.

What law or laws are these of which you speak, and who has paid the ultimate penalty?

The last person I know of who was executed under federal law was Timothy McVeigh, and if he did not deserve his punishment, I'd be hard pressed to say who does.

Either you lack the capacity or inclination to think this through, or you are in obstinate denial. The ultimate consequence for ANY ONE who unequivocally rejects ANY LAW is DEATH. For the sake of argument, I will walk you through using the seat belt law passed to keep me "safe". If I totally reject it. I will be issued a ticket for not wearing it at the first opportunity by some unconstitutional highway stop even if I have done nothing wrong. The officer will write a ticket, which I will refuse because I reject the law and his right to enforce it. He will probably throw it in the window or put under the wiper blade, I will not pay it, and the state will suspend my drivers license. But I will continue to drive since the law they suspended it for is not legal and I reject it. The next time they stop me for not doing anything wrong, they will attempt to arrest me. But I will tell them they cannot since the law is illegal. They will then attempt to forcefully detain me, I will resist, and ultimately they will kill me for rejecting their silly a$$ed seat belt law.

The same logic can be applied to ANY law on the books at ANY level of government. The fact that no one has chosen to die against any of the million forms of tyranny present today is a reflection of both the common sense AND the cowardice of the average citizen. Nobody in his right mind would die fighting a seat belt law ......... until that is combined with 2, 467 drug laws, 8,724 licensing and permit laws, 9,386 "vice" laws, etc. etc. etc. There comes a time when a guy just can't (or won't) take any more. I am already there (see the reply to Cap'nJim). You can call me all of the names you want, when my children graduate form college, I expect to make the ultimate sacrifice doing everything in my power to stop a domestic court that makes more money, exploits more children, and does more damage than child pornography. All I need is about 200 men as willing to die for their children's future as I am. If I don't die in that quest, I expect I will expand in similar manner as far as I can go in the direction of personal freedom and personal responsibility until I am dead.

deloominator - Well... I admit my opening remark, was a trifle pointed, but when somebody is challenging me to die in a revolution, one that I feel is not even remotely necessary, my response will always be, "After you." I do not regard this as a cheap shot.

You write of the rape of our liberties in ways which extend from seat belts to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Since these two issues seem rather to trivial to send you to storm the castle, I ask what are these other egregious limitations on your liberty which has you ready to emulate Daniel Shays or the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion?

In your rejoinder, you step around the rather minimal imposition of these two supposed instances of tyranny by saying, "A mountain made of pebbles weighs about as much as a mountain made of solid rock.", but decline to list some of the more egregious laws, or even to substantively describe the type of laws you find tyrannical. In short, you have not shown me a mountain, only a couple of small pebbles, and allusions to a mountain of other such small rocks which you have not succeeded in showing or describing to me. Drug laws may be new. But even the Pilgrims had vice laws, laws against public lewdness, prostitution etc. This is nothing new.

In seems that the capital penalty you speak of, you see at the end of a long chain of events, which begins with your initial and disregarded ticket for not wearing a seat belt, and continues with slow escalation, until it places you in an armed confrontation with the police or ever a SWAT team. By this I gather that you reject not just the seat belt, but also the whole body of traffic and licensing laws as a form or unjust and illegal tyranny.

1. So I have to ask where do you draw the line between civil authority and your own personal liberties?
2. Do you regard it as an unjust imposition that you are forced to drive on the right side of the road, to keep your car within marked lanes, or periodically have your vehicle inspected for your safety ...and the safety of others?
3. Under what interpretation of the Constitution, or under what other authority do you declare these laws "illegal"? Please, use the seat belt law as an example. I don't particularly like it either, but not every nonsensical or irrational law is unconstitutional.

The next time they stop me for not doing anything wrong, they will attempt to arrest me. But I will tell them they cannot since the law is illegal.

What I gather from your posts, is that you claim the right to nullify any local, state or federal law with which you personally disagree, and when you find this does not work, your response is to proclaim an immanent revolution. No society has ever been able to exist under such a chaotic pardigm.

So lots of luck with the insurrection. I suspect you will be alone, or a part of a small group of similarly disaffected citizens, and that your result will either be the death you so freely embrace, or imprisonment. I honestly hope that I am not in the vicinity when it happens.

dman - I was not referring to your opening statement as a cheap shot, but your entire post and posts of yours I have read in the past. But that is neither here nor there. You seem to consistently lack the ability for civil discourse without condescension, derogation, and clever little insinuation.

Nor was I challenging anyone to anything. I informed any one who cared to read of my conviction and my intention to die for that conviction if necessary (and it looks as though it will be). I could care less if you feel threatened because I have sworn to fight the rapists of my life and liberties to the death. If you are one of them, then I hope you DO feel threatened; perhaps sufficiently so to reflect upon the delusions you hold of your right to continue to do so and what it may cost.

I have neither the time nor the patience to banter with persons whose cognitive processes are not based in reality, and whose bent is obviously limited to logical fallacy and self esteemed clever little cheap shots (of which your last post was almost entirely an example). I will not bother to respond unless your next post (if any) is rational, reasonable, and factual.

Last, I submit to you that almost every heinous tyrant in history has hidden behind law and order or "the perfect society" in order to oppress, suppress, and repress all dissenters and dissension. You're in bad company. Have a good life.

Well, Deloominator, I'd be surprised if you find many people who will take your type of vague, rambling attack on society's legal structure. If my language seems a bit snide it because you consistantly refuse to be pinned down to details regarding the tyranny of government. To be driven to revolution because of seat belt laws, the TSA, or the "2, 467 drug laws, 8,724 licensing and permit laws, 9,386 "vice" laws", is frankly unrealistic; how many of these laws actually infringe on your quality of life?

By your own words, you have lived elsewere and found, "THERE ARE NO FREE COUNTRIES LEFT.", and a few sentences later, "In all of recorded history, man has NEVER been able to create a free and independent nation of free and independent people.".

So if there are no free countries left and if man[kind] has, by your words, never been able to create a free and independent nation of free and independent people, one wonders why you feel that you will suceed, or more substantively, why you feel that it is not you and your concepts of personal freedom, but the world which is wrong.

This is not a snide, or cheap-shot observance, it is the product of simple logic and common sense, and I suspect that have no clear idea of what type of law and government you would put in place, if you had the power.

I'm done.

Basic observation of your sentence structure, diction, and cognitive processes leads me to believe you are probably gifted. My IQ, however, was approximately 4 deviations above the norm on the standard bell curve at last testing. The reason you deign and condescend is that you are arrogant, not that you are superior. Your last comment did, at least, eliminate MOST of the derogation, but is still replete with inaccuracies and logical fallacies.

For instance, you state that I "consistantly (<spelling) refuse to be pinned down to details regarding the tyranny of government", yet I offered the discrete topic of domestic court for discussion in post 1.38. I am prepared to discuss the corruption, perversion, and tyranny of domestic court to include constitutional violations, systemic child exploitation, blatant sexism against men, and the perversion of the psyches of our children at the federal and state levels ad infinitum. I have done my homework, assimilated the empirical data, analyzed the trends, written the presentations, and subsequently discarded them all when I could not get a single legislator or media to even look at them or hear argument about the topic.

You then attempt to trivialize my entire stance by pointing out the triviality of the examples I listed while completely failing to address my argument that a multitude of trivial micro tyrannies is just plain tyranny. If I must, I am capable of waxing pedantic to reiterate that point to someone who lacks the capacity to grasp it, but one cannot prove that black is black to another who looks upon it and adamantly claims it is green.

I might as well be conversing about dogs while you sharp shoot the fleas. And just in case you have never experienced psych 101, the fact of the matter is that the world IS FREQUENTLY WRONG! I am by no means so arrogant as to presume that I am always right or have all of the answers. BUT NEITHER DO YOU! I am simply stating that you have no right to interfere in my life and take my resources to create YOUR sick twisted idea of Utopia. I have my own sick twisted idea of Utopia - thank you!

That brings me to your last statement. At last, you have made a statement I cannot refute. I have spent countless hours and lost untold amounts of sleep desperately struggling with the concept of creating a government that leaves people free and cannot be corrupted by the liars, cheats, thieves, religious fanatics, ideologues, tyrants, and greedy bastards of the world. I have not. What I DO know is that there are things worth fighting and dying for even if all you accomplish is to fight and die for that thing. My children are one of them and I am at exactly that point. Your failure to recognize the cause, validity, and depth of my conviction is somewhat indicative of the fact that you may be one of the oppressors. Rarely does an oppressor see himself as such. One must ask the oppressed.

I am not looking for a litany of laws which you find oppressive, but rather examples, tied to some violation of our Consitution, and it must be a violation which is generally recognized.

For instance, take the seat-belt law, which you deem both oppressive and invalid, can you substantively answer the following questions:

1. Under what clause of the Constitution do you declare this law invalid?
2. Under what doctrine to you, as an individual, gain the right to declare such a law invalid, refusing to obey it or to recognize any efforts to enforce it?
3. If individuals are legally empowered to invalidate any law they deem unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, where does one draw the line?
4. Are not all of society's laws then reduced to voluntary guidelines?

You have every right to disagree with the seat belt law. I too find it an intrusion into matters I regard as solely of my own personal choice. But, since I have always worn a seat belt, I also do not regard it as a cause for civil disobedience, or as your own stated course of action, a reason to begin an escalating confrontation with the civil and possibly military authorities, ending in death or imprisonment.

There, I have given you 4 specific questions which highlight the reasons I find your positions to be unsupportable.

All societies, going back as far into the past as the historical record can reach, have imposed certain restrictions on its members. In some these restrictions were imposed from above. In others, they are imposed by the the people themselves. But even in a perfect democracy, there will still be a disaffected minority, coerced by the plurality of opinion; this is the tyranny of the majority, and there is no escape from it, not without the complete atomization of society.

So you object to the seat belt law (for instance). Then work to change it. Start a voter initiative to overturn the law in your state, or challenge it in the courts. If you win, you will have accomplished something. If you lose, well, once again, this is the price you pay for being a part of a society.

Thank you for greatly reducing the logical fallacies and cheap shots. I will attempt to answer in suit.

1. The Bill of Rights, Article X states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article X is written in plain English and is easily comprehensible to any but an idiot. The only argument comes from those who wish to disregard it in order to control or benefit by that action. The article has been circumvented, countered, even nullified by the weak argument (consistently voiced by the socialists and anal retentive megalomaniacs) of the "general welfare" clause in the preamble. But I ask you, what power is better reserved to my person than my very own personal space?

I'm guessing more than 95% of what the federal government does (the "litany of laws" to which you referred) is irrationally justified CONTRARY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT by the flimsy general welfare argument and is thus unconstitutional.

2. The Declaration of Independence is as good a guideline as one may find. It states that people have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. any law made which usurps those rights ought rightly be rejected and fought by individuals and groups of people.

3. Actually, the Constitution and the legal industry were designed to do exactly that: legally empower the individual to challenge any law created. Unfortunately, the constitution has been all but completely circumvented and the legal industry has been ludicrously corrupted. I submit to you that the line need be drawn at the point where the government punishes citizens or corporate entities for abuses to another, reasonably protects the homeland from invasion, and tends to basic interstate commerce issues. Complete discussion of those will take some time, but I will justify all of those statements as needed.

4. ALL governments are inevitably voluntarily obeyed by the governed up to the point where the governed reject such government. The true question is the precise point at which the people should suppress (or overthrow) their government vs the point where a government should oppress it's people. Mob rule and anarchy cannot and should not be allowed (that is the definition of democracy. There IS NO PERFECT DEMOCRACY!).

You do not have the right to impose the plurality of your opinion on me. I will fight you to the death to "escape from it" as you stated. I call upon you to precisely justify that statement and iterate how personal freedom from your opinions and ideology will cause the "atomization of society".

On the other hand, Hitler had laws which allowed him to exterminate 6 million people. I don't know about you, but I have a problem with that. Most Germans of that time, however, followed his lead and his dictates and dutifully turned in millions of Jewish children to be sent to the gas chambers. I have spent three years in Germany, and found the German people to be of far greater substance than Americans. If that could happen there, it can happen (perhaps it is already happening to a lesser extent) here.

What I am stating without equivocation is that our government has been usurped and corrupted by BOTH the filthy rich and the dirt poor to the point where We the People should overthrow it. But I am not a rebel looking for a cause. Revolution is a dirty, deadly business. I will, however, fight to the death against the cause cast upon me - domestic court. I assure you, I held your naive belief about rationally challenging the system from within. One cannot find a lawyer to take the case which will eliminate half of the income from the average lawyer. One cannot force the media to cover violation to any but the politically correct. One cannot find a politician to challenge a wrong at the cost of his voter base. All struggles for civil liberties have cost lives; I fear this one will cost mine in the very least.

I wouldn't worry about a revolution if I were you. Americans are far too selfish, shallow, and cowardly to do anything about our government raping the future of our grandchildren (our children's is already mortgaged) with a 15 trillion dollar debt. They won't fight for anything more important than whether a dog craps in their yard or two gay people can get married. All I know is that I would rather be dead than live that life.

Article X is written in plain English and is easily comprehensible to any but an idiot.

Now, who is taking a cheap shot. But that is alright.

What is important is that I specifically asked about the Constitution and how it relates to the seat belt law, or to be more accurate, "seat belt laws", as they exist in multiple states, and not under Federal Law. I singled out this particular law (or laws) to give you the opportunity to show how such State laws violate the Constitution. While you may be correct that, by implication, the Bill of Rights forbids the Federal Government the right to regulate such matters, neither doest it forbid it to the states; the phrase "...reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", leaves this issue unanswered.

You go on to speak in broad generalities, stating that you are "...guessing more than 95% of what the federal government does (the "litany of laws" to which you referred) is irrationally justified CONTRARY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT by the flimsy general welfare argument and is thus unconstitutional." This statement does not give me any logical basis by which to either agree or disagree with your basic claim.

The Declaration of Independence is as good a guideline as one may find. It states that people have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

While the Declaration of Independence doubtlessly shows the mental framework of our founding fathers, this document does not have force of law in our society. Moreover, it was written as public rationale, justifying the American Revolution. As I recall from my high school history lessons, one of the prime motivators was taxation without representation; it was not a refutation of all regulation or of all governmental authority. The unfolding and final result of both the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania are illustrative of this fact: that our founding fathers did not believe that a legitimate government lacked the moral authority to put down insurrections.

Actually, the Constitution and the legal industry were designed to do exactly that: legally empower the individual to challenge any law created.

Yes, but not by preemptive individual action, but through the dual channels of political action and challenges in the courts. Taking the convenient example of seat belt laws, you have it within your power to challenge this law, by applying pressure to you state congressman, by direct vote, through a referendum, or (if you can demonstrate legal cause), through the courts. To instead choose the course which you outlined above strikes me as futile, counter-productive and, frankly driven by emotion, not reason.

ALL governments are inevitably voluntarily obeyed by the governed up to the point where the governed reject such government. The true question is the precise point at which the people should suppress (or overthrow) their government vs the point where a government should oppress it's people.

Here, we agree. But I have to observe, that in our society, there is still ample courses of action for the disaffected, short of outright revolution. The people of Libya, or of Syria or Iran could certainly be justified in resorting to civil disobedience, or even armed insurrection in response to rule by religious or secular tyrants which has lasted for decades. But not in the United States.

You do not have the right to impose the plurality of your opinion on me. I will fight you to the death to "escape from it" as you stated. I call upon you to precisely justify that statement and iterate how personal freedom from your opinions and ideology will cause the "atomization of society".

I certainly do not have that right, but it is a generally accepted principal, that in a Democracy, even a representative Democracy, the will of the majority is supreme, limited only by whatever constitutional safeguards underlie it. This necessarily means that the will of the majority supersedes that of the minority, and in your particular case, it means that, absent any constitutional prohibition, you can be forced to wear a seat belt against your will [or to risk the consequences]. It is not personal freedom by itself which has the power to atomize a society, but the perception of all individuals that they have the right to declare ANY LAW invalid.
You believe the the seat belt law in your home state is invalid, and you may have good logical reasons for holding to that opinion. You have your list of invalid and unjust laws. I may have mine, and it is certain that many other Americans have their own lists, and most of the lists are different.

So which laws does society enforce?

Do they allow you to ignore the seat belt laws, but continue to enforce speed limits?

Do they enforce seat belt laws but ignore drivers using the wrong side of the road because there is less traffic?

Once you let this genii out of the bottle, there is no way to control it. If an one individual can declare one law invalid, then so too can others. Society cannot survive with every individual making his or her own rules of public conduct. There has to be a commonly recognized means for determining what laws are founded on good sense and are constitutional. It cannot be done on a person by person basis. In our society, the venues for settling such issues are the courts, free elections and the legislative process. Not perfect, I admit, but as Winston Churchill once said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

As to your references to Hitler and the laws passed in Nazi Germany, I would say there is certainly a point at which a normally law-abiding citizen may [and should] resist manifestly unjust and immoral laws, but that point has hardly been reached, or even approached in our country.

I held your naive belief about rationally challenging the system from within. One cannot find a lawyer to take the case which will eliminate half of the income from the average lawyer.

Again, a general statement without any case details by which to judge it. Are we speaking of seat belt laws, or something more dramatic?

In closing, I'll ask once again, by what legal authority do you deem Seat Belt laws illegal, or unconstitutional? I ask this not because these laws are the most important and worthy of debate, but because it may show me how your are arriving at many of your conclusions.

Hahahaha hahahaha hahaha

Fail.

If the US were to "benchmark" with other countries, it shows that our gun privileges create a far more dangerous society. There's no empirical evidence to show that a well armed population is a safer population, in fact the data proves otherwise.

It doesn't matter what empirical evidence there may or may not be. If you don't like our right to bear arms then get out.

Wasn't there a shooting rampage in Europe over the summer. So we would be safer like that?

Ok, MisterMo, you need the get your hands on The Bulletproof Mind by LTC(R) Dave Grossman and after you listen what he has to say, I would love to hear if you keep your same stance on gun ownership. Yea, London is great not having guns - over 20 people were killed because they were not able to defend themselves during the riots. In PA our governor passed the Castle Doctrine and now, we are legally able to defend our lives and our family's lives against anyone who intends to do us harm. Also, if the Russans would have been armed in Beslan, over 320 people, women and children would not have been raped, tortured and murdered by Muslim terrorists. We have a bunch of people in denial in this country. There are some really, really bad people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life.

I recomend every American view Dave Grossman's seminar. I received it 2 days ago and watched all 5 DVD's. Once I started, I couldn't stop. It is riveting, powerfull, and scared the sh!t out of me.

In the words of Charleston Heston, " You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

@MisterMo You have no idea what you are talking about because you have obviously dismissed any evidence that would be contrary to your views. I was once shot in my own driveway by an MS-13 gangbanger. Without going into gory details; afterwards NO ONE was stupid enough to approach me or mine in a violent manner. If I wouldn't have had a gun, my home would have become one stop shopping for every scumbag in town.