Neo

Thoughtful, as always. I'm with you that choosing not to be around guns is, in fact, a choice a free man can make. Choosing not to be in the presence of anything asserts your rights. Regarding felons, I'd NOT make the argument that limiting their ability to carry guns via law is unconstitutional law. Neo, the pro second amendment poster recognizing legitimate legislative limits.

One, awesome and thank you. Two, the same to several others.

I meant put a government tank in all of our driveways, not my own tank! Mercy me! The framers knew citizens with guns wouldn't defeat an army in a battle. That was true then and now. Your point is not theirs.

I agree with your view of the intent, mostly. The argument about defense from other persons was part of the dialogue that went into the amendment and into many dialogues around concurrently written state constitutions. See David Barton (my best source until I find another). The argument against defense against the state is not one of my handgun defeating your tank, but one of 300 million armed people ever being subjugated by their own or another government. You may defeat armed citizens in a battle with your military, but you'll never take away their freedom. Put a tank in all of our driveways and you're correct.

Interesting observation, Hoss. I wonder how the framers would have discussed "arms" in the context of today's arsenals. Very interesting point. On the one hand, they clearly did not prohibit even the most fearsome weapons of the day. On the other, they could not have imagined machine guns and tanks. The court has abridged the right as time's passed, with clarification intended to balance individual rights with the right of groups and representative government. Here, here. I stated here long ago that I put myself through a concealed carry course as a constitutional exercise. My view is that our laws, consistent with our constitution, can make CC too easy. Registration and background checks? For me, no. Stricter testing and skill demonstration? For me, yes. Assault weapons are harder for me to come down on, one side or the other. Substitute "multiple rounds delivered more quickly" for "assault" and I find myself leaning toward individual choice.

You made me laugh. I agree with you. I'm comfortable that law abiding citizens (most of us) aren't whack jobs. When they are, that's life, and I can't imagine legislating away the unlimited risks whack jobs expose us to. Add chance. Life's risky. Further to "when they are", I'm comfortable with how each of us decides how to be prepared. Have a drink for me! BTW, in most states establishments that serve alcohol prohibit concealed weapons. I agree. I can't prove gun laws protect. I can prove they don't. I've reconciled that with the Constitution and individual choice. Prove something to me, or demonstrate it overwhelmingly, and I'll reconsider. What I'd like to hear is a criminal or madman who says "you know, if it weren't for those damned gun laws, I'd have .....".

I'll toss out my own straw man. Show me a jurisdiction where gun laws have protected citizens from gun violence. Start with Chicago and the District of Columbia. I think the Columbine families would like to take their chances with armed lunch ladies. If I had been a student, I would have. Regarding seeing any instance, see the link, presented again. I'm not sure if the perpetrator would have killed zero, one, or twelve had he not been stopped. To answer your question, "yes". If your point is can I think of a mass shooting stopped, not off the top of my head. A corollary: in those same instances, gun laws failed. I'm not saying the second amendment stops all evil. I am saying gun laws do not. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/new-mexico-motel-shooting/ If pro gun law's argument is it doesn't stop "all", I agree. My argument is that it doesn't stop all. It stops some. Let me choose for me and I'll let you choose for you.

I will refer you to the law suit identifying the theater as a gun free zone. The theater self identified as such, just like the school and military installations. The theater was not the closest, nor most convenient, to the shooter. There are many gun free zones in states permitting concealed carry.

Three recent mass shootings. I am not trying to be selective and will respect additional information. Colorado theater: Gun free zone. Sandy Hook School: Gun free zone. Chattanooga military installations: Gun free zone. I suspect there are other reasons. The common denominator exists.

Two people would disagree with you. We can have different points of view, but we can't assert different facts. Having a gun may protect you. We each have a choice to decide for ourselves. By the way, read this story and tell me who gun laws would not disarm and who gun laws were protecting? I read that gun laws would not disarm the perpetrator. They didn't. I also read that gun laws would not protect the victims. They didn't. At the very least, we can move the discussion away from absolute assertions and toward situational circumstances where the judgment and rights of citizens come into play. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/new-mexico-motel-shooting/

Rest in Peace, Van. Thank you for priceless memories. "Fandemonium!"

Here's Bremmer on the Iranian deal. Warning: He's only interesting to non-partisans trying to look beyond politics for insight and truth. Want fair and balanced? http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8960095/ian-bremmer-iran-deal I just realized it requires log in. I wonder why. Most WSJ Op Ed pieces go "public" in hours.

Awesome question, and way above my pay grade. However, I'll give you a link to an article that influenced me greatly. The article describes three paths, each most respectfully, and asks you to choose the one you feel is best. It's an article I'd recommend to everyone here. (I love Peggy Noonan). It reviews and excerpts the book: Superpower: Three Choices for America's Role in the World Book by Ian Bremmer I'll not tell you which I chose until after you've had a chance to read. One path resonated with me greater than the others. Take a look, and we can talk later. (I have not read the book) http://www.wsj.com/articles/choosing-a-path-in-the-world-ahead-1433459443

Elephant in the room. I have a friend on SabreSpace who I respect and for whom I feel great affection. He is a human being. I can imagine the conflict and pain he must feel in light of today's events. It must be difficult to watch posters such as me guess and draw conclusions about things we understand so little. You are in my thoughts today.

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't mean every cell in my body doesn't oppose these killings. The same cells believe they're undeserved, irrational, and not human. You may agree, or not. I'm not concluding anything from your post. I would say to today's new widows "this doesn't surprise me". I've seen too much to be surprised. I would not say to those same widows that "chickens have come home to roost" or "we deserved this". Sincere question: Do you call today's killing domestic terror or Radical Islamist terror? I'm experimenting with my own language. Assumption: today's killer was motivated by events in the Middle East (yet to be proved).

I'm sympathetic to your point. My (US centric and therefore limited) understanding of the Iranian man on the street is that he struggles with theocracy and is interested in democracy, inasmuch as interested means "is willing to explore". That's one of the reasons the American tepid response to the Arab spring saddened me so. Insight! I agree with the cyclical view you have of the withdrawal following the advance. For the record, I supported both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank you. Grateful, as always. A very good read. I googled the author. Imagine my joy when I learned he was a math major and the founder of a school of thought named NeoRealism!

I, too, do not believe anyone wants to test our military. That was the last set of wars. They're (choose your proper noun) doing quite well without testing our military. That's the current war. There are consequences to expanding and to withdrawing. We are now seeing the consequences of withdrawal. Until we show the will to confront something, especially something with expansion as its stated goal, it will grow. Step one, for me, is naming it and articulating why you oppose it. Step two is assessing your will. Then, strategy and tactics follow. I've not yet formulated the Neo Doctrine of vision, strategy and tactics. It's hard, especially when leading a fractured democracy comprised of entities and identities. I'm an American. I do know, however, that a war against workplace violence and domestic terror will not make US citizens safe.

I'd like to read it. Link or directions, if you'd be so kind. My condolences to the families and loved ones of our four Marines.

Yes, yes, yes.

I can imagine moving past theocracy for democracy. In fact, I can imagine Imams discussing the exact evolution in reverse when discussing the U.S. "Hope" is not a strategy, in the words of a former boss of mine. I don't want any nation adopting my form of government until its citizens decide it's best for them. Here's to beautiful theocracies and happy citizens be they Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. If, however, they're violently spreading their theocracy, I'm against them because of said violence, lack of tolerance, and subjugation. I am a democrat (small "d") because I want each individual to decide for himself. If another nation wants to CHOOSE collectively, for ITS self, that's fine, too. We can all debate how much personal liberty they have or haven't surrendered. No nation building folly. I am not hopeful Iran will stop being what it is. I am hopeful the U.S. will continue being what it is. Because of that, the rubbing point that we call religion is, more broadly and more accurately, freedom of self determination, religious and otherwise. I'm mulling this deal over. As a base case, I have no deal at all. That's ugly, and preliminarily I like some deal better than none. However, my best conclusion will be based on the leverage we had and the result we achieved. Our leverage has generally declined, I believe, in terms of our influence, over the years. That was the goal, wasn't it? History will judge the President on the quality of the deal. I hope his goal wasn't simply to get an agreement. Now, a word from the personal bias portion of my brain, which occasionally speaks more loudly than the rational portion. I wouldn't send John Kerry to negotiate the purchase of a Taurus at a Ford dealership. I also believe President Obama would've turned Pearl Harbor over to Tehran if that was necessary to close this deal. The test of ME, as a citizen, is whether or not I can ignore my preconceptions and look at this stand alone. I heard the President speak. He said some things I agree with regarding the current state of affairs and the relationship with Iran outside of the agreement. I've not yet signed on to his assessment of the agreement, itself. I would encourage him to use cautious language and avoid statements like "we've prevented Iran from getting a bomb". Perhaps Tehran is "shovel ready". Time will tell. MUST SEE TV: Look and listen for commentary from the regional players. Israel and Syria have spoken. It's not typically forthcoming, but I'd like to hear the Saudi / Sunni reaction. I understand it's not popular in Riyadh.

Leaving the scene bothers me as much as the initial bad judgement ...

Very kind, indeed. Thank you. Consider this. It's the ideas, more so, and the words, less so! The words are mine, but the ideas belong to any one of us.

We are friends. AND, a mellenial acknowledging the value of seasoning! Imagine me reading you two on matters hockey.

BagBoy .... agree, agree, agree .... especially about abandoning big national investment/spending. I remember being a boy and watching a man walk on the moon ... I still look at the moon, from time to time, and marvel ... just imagine!