So, why are guns necessary?

[ICantSpellDawg]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon. So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."


Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source.

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-5.htm

Most regulations in the 18th century were not merely rules and punishments for soldiers, but also standards of minimal armament and food/supplies. Either way, this wording is in the prefatory clause and is not binding on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am not someone who believes that background checks are unconstitutional, or even permits for carrying weapons outside of your home, but I do recognize that most attempts to push these winnable strategies are Trojan horses; attempt to poison the tree and disarm most, and subsequently all Americans. The ulterior motive is clear. Most people who push these things would disarm all law abiding Americans if they could get away with it. I am reluctant to accept any amount of poison from the enemy.

Lemur, as an example, if you and I were going to negotiate on an increase in oversight on gun sales, we would probably increase individuals ability to attain carry permits - with proper training or law abiding background. I would talk to you and agree to a compromise. I trust that your agenda isn't to disarm me, but to come to a better result. I don't believe most people have a fair and reasonable agenda. You might, but unfortunately there are too many who would piggyback on your good diplomacy to nail us to the wall. Plus, no co promise has ever been suggested, merely a brutal war of attrition where we must simply lose in order for them to win. Compromise is when both of us win.

Also, to illustrate my point of trustworthiness in negotiation - I will never again by an insurance policy from Allstate, because the company is untrustworthy. I will, however, buy insurance policies from countless other insurers because either a)they ARE trustworthy or b) they are not known to be untrustworthy.
Democratic leadership cannot be trusted on this issue at this time. At another time? Perhaps - when we hold the Executive and one of the 2 houses, compromise may be in our interest.