The greatest country in the world!!! ... against which I need to defend myself. (Page 2)

You know, funny as that is, there is quite a bit of truth there.  I know that after Sandyhook I had a feeling like that....."geez, we can't let our kids start being victims, we've got to do something".....for many people  that "something" was buying a gun.  Go figure.

There is an old saying. "I love my country, but I fear my government". 

I think that really rings true especially with a government (both Bush & Obama administrations are to blame here) that is changing the face of the country with overreaching powers that border (and sometime overstep) our rights as afforded by the Constitution.

Can I ask what you do to live up to greatness? 

I remember exactly what you wrote about "doing something."  I also think "something" is going to happen.  But, it does sort of drive me crazy when people get all riled up that Congress "has to do something," without regard to actual effectiveness.

Me personally or the nation?

I'm going to generalize.  The liberals got all freaked out about the deterioration of Constitutional protections pursuant to the Patriot Act under Pres. Bush.  The conservatives are getting all freaked out about the deterioration of Constitutional protections related to gun control under Pres. Obama.  

I agree with them both.  Generally, liberals and conservatives don't seem to see this as the same issue.

You personally. Who do you think makes up the nation?

^^^ This.

I have said it before but I think this same line of thinking should go for same sex marriage too.

Agree 100%. Ya, you want a head scratcher... those that are against gay rights usually claim to be for individual rights. Or those fighting for individual rights, (abortion/privacy, gay rights) seem to work really hard at mob rule and the "collective". Broad brushes are cool.

Having a marriage recognized by the State is a privilege not a right. But that does not mean that the privilege should not be extended to same sex couples or removed from hetrosexual couples. 

Gotcha, I think, and that's really, really broad, so I'll just throw out an example of what I'm talking about.

In dealing with poverty.  The Republican side needs to realize that the free market isn't going to solve the problems of deteriorating and poor inner cities.  Development will not take place in them because their are no jobs, no money, and the people are uneducated.  If there is development, it only serves to move the "ghetto" somewhere else.  Democrats need to realize that handing out monetary aid does absolutely nothing to solve any problem.  What good are food stamps when they can't buy good food?  All it does is make it cost more to treat them in hospitals later, and it does nothing to create jobs, which in turn could generate tax revenue for the locality.

The national debate over this has boiled down to basically... they have no options and we need to give more money vs their lazy and don't deserve any more money.  It's stupid and does nothing to address any issues whatsoever.  I think if the two sides would come together and actually discuss ways to spend the money that would actually get put to use in a community, problems would start solving themselves.  Random ideas I have are...

Provide grants and assistance to build things most of take for granted, like grocery stores, and train residents on how to run them.

Train residents to work on infrastructure upgrades most of the county so direly needs.

Place business incubators in the area that can make use of private funds to start up local businesses.

Provide funding for an expanded police force in the area and send residents through the academy.

Basically, a job is better than monetary assistance, but taking away monetary assistance doesn't equal somebody going out and finding a job that can support themselves.  This is just one of the national arguments that has become way to heated over something that will make no difference.  In that regard, we are failing those communities.  Living up to greatness would be actually going into them and helping them, not just handing them money or taking it away without ever even having to deal with them at all.

To bring this back to guns and greatness... i guess... When a community begins to thrive, the people committing crimes to make money goes down.  Thus, gun violence goes down, the fear in surrounding communities goes down, gun ownership probably goes down, and we haven't had to play a stupid game of imaginary chicken over the second amendment.  Things like this will do more to decrease the amount of people dying from guns everyday in this country as opposed to both sides freaking out after mass shootings (which should have torn the roof off the healthcare and mental health challenges).  If we want to live up to the "greatness" we've actually got to expose our warts and deal with them instead of staging petty fights over things that really don't matter.

The statement "I love my country, but I fear my government" may sound cliche, but it is entirely appropriate.  Government is a questionably necessary evil.  The country and the government are not one and the same

Interesting. Your solution is more government. Not more government assistance, but more "entity" doing more work. Why can't you do more work? Do you volunteer, do you donate? Do you help people?

American as a whole are a very generous group. We gave $291 BILLION in 2010. Our volunteer rate for 2011 was 26.8... 64 million Americans volunteered at least once. Why must we wait for a middle man? I understand aspiring to greatness, I just do not understand trying to legislate it anymore than I understand legislating morality.

Here is my view of the world... 10 of thousands of years of evolution have developed survival strategies. Either you are a hunter, or you are a scavenger. And humans are good at both. Both are equally effective at surviving. When "America" was born, people from every corner of the globe came here to be free, to create their own destiny, to make their mark. There were also scavengers that dreamed of trash piles overflowing with milk and honey... and ours actually do. American's throw away HALF of all their food. Billions of people around the globe would actually jump at the chance to be at the bottom of the ladder in America, it would be a HUGE increase in their standard of living.

And here we are today. There will always be those that are happy living off the backs of others. And there will always be those that will not settle for what they are given. Unfortunately, both of those people vote here and we are going broke.

There is no Utopia. That is not what this world is about. It was never promised. We are no different than we were 10,000 years ago, we just have cooler toys.

Goose I think you are completely right about that.  Each side has there boogeymen they are afraid of.  They see the world differently because there experiences are so much different.

I'll agree with you the day that government can make a pencil. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU

I'll just speak for me and my understanding of the whole debate.

If you look at the context of the 2nd amendment when it was written, the founders looked at history and saw the 2A as a way to prevent a dictatorship from forming.  If the government gets out of hand the people have the ability to rise up and overthrow the government.  This has somewhat of a MAD (mutual assured destruction) wherein neither side is actually going to ever fight, but simply because they have the ability to neither side will.
Our country is obviously a lot more mature after 200+ years so it's easy to think of the citizens rising up against the government is not necessary anymore.  However, if you look at the continued erosion of individual rights in this country there is an argument to be made that it has to be stopped at some point if our country is to continue on the way it always has.
Rights under attack right now depending on who you talk to.
-Freedom of religion
-Freedom of speech
-Freedom of the press
-Freedom of assembly
-Freedom to bear arms
-Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
-The right to due process of law
-The right to a speedy and public trial
-Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments

When you look at things like the Patriot Act, Assassinating American Citizens abroad, torture, indefinite detention of criminals without due process on US soil (non terrorist), etc... the government has been and will continue to reach further and further to trample all of our rights in the name of "public safety" if people do not stand up against it.

Now for me personally, I own and carry firearms not to protect myself from the government because as bad as it is, we're still able to fight these battles in the legislative halls.  I own and carry firearms for personal protection from the evil people in this world.  I know for a fact that the police cannot protect me at all times and I made a choice several years ago that I want to have options available to me if I find myself or my family in harms way.
I totally respect anyone who doesn't feel comfortable owning firearms differing their safety to the police/government, but in the same way I don't think it's appropriate for me to demand that you worship my god it is not appropriate for you to demand that I don't own guns.  (not saying you are tealeaf, just speaking in general).

"Fill your hands you sonsabit&^es!!!"

Hasn't this already happened.  Does the first ammendment not also say you can not yell "Fire" in a crowded building and claim it to be Freedom of Speech.  All the "rights" in the constitution have caveats written in to them (including the second ammendment from what I understand), so the debates about where to draw those lines are legitimate and healthy.  Where I believe the discussions fall apart are when the arguments get made "this is my right and nothing can change that so my argument wins end of story"  History proves that is not the case.  Ammendments to the constitution can change and be clarified over time as current society evolves and grows and requires it to. 

Also to one point above about state sanctioned marriage not being a "right".  You are correct that is not the protected right that is ever discussed in that argument the right in that case is that everyone is to be free from discrimination and that preventing gay marriage is a form of discrimination that would be equal to suggesting you can't get married because you are..... (fill in any blank used in the past)

That would be relevant if I was saying the government should control production processes.  It has nothing to do with assisting human beings in opening a grocery store in a food desert.

The problem with the Fire in a theater analogy is that it restricts the right of the person actually thinking about committing a damaging act, not the right of the person not committing a damaging act, 2A restrictions do not.  How does restricting my access to firearms prevent another mass shooting?  Or look at it this way; the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater puts others directly in harms way, my owing a firearm does not.

The yelling fire restriction isn't equivalent to limiting what kind of gun a person can own.  You always own your mouth and you can yell fire all you want, you just have legal implications if you do yell fire in a theater.  Much in the same way that if you shoot somebody illegally with a gun you have legal implications for doing that.  So I argue that the "yelling fire" equivalent already exists with gun ownership.

The equivalent of implementing proposed gun control on the first amendment would be removing or modifying your vocal cords so you no longer have the ability to yell anything at all because "yelling" is the problem.

 Change the wording a bit. Remove the word contradiction and replace it with stereotype. That clear things up for you?

Don't take this personally, but I just get REALLY tired of hearing this repeated ad nausium when it is completely false.

"Rights" do not have caveats. Not being able to yell fire is not a "restriction" of that right. You have free speech...period, end of story. Using speech to harm another, or to infringe on others rights, is not protected. It isn't "free speech"... it is slander, liable, or endangerment.

2A... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That is implied in the Constitution, that rights are "inalienable"... that government can't take them away... yet just incase that isn't clear enough, they actually spelled it out... "s-h-a-l-l  n-o-t  b-e  i-n-f-r-i-n-g-e-d". My guns do absolutely nothing to anybody. They collect dust. My guns infringe on others rights in no way shape or form. If somebody does use a gun to harm another, or infringe on their rights...there are laws for that, and indeed that is not protected under the 2A... robbery, aggravated assault, kidnapping, murder. At which point, after you have been afforded your rights to due process, we will remove your freedom to live in society, or we will execute you.

See how that works?