The Blue Board

You just don't get it. Probably never will. Good luck with that.

They'll probably say "HAIL STALIN!"

Not sure what you are getting at. You seem acknowledge both are violations, but you contend that one is not "that bad" of a violation.

Whether you go 20 MPH or 40 MPH over the speed limit, it's still against the law.

You're saying "They can vote, but why do they need to sit in the front of the bus?"

"America!"

What the anti crowd either is missing or ignoring is the fact that with the exception of the shooting of Rep. Gifford in Arizona since Columbine all of these big news events have taken place in 'Gun Free' zones. The shooting in the Portland mall last year was actually stopped by a CCW that was taken in the mall by an individual ignoring the gun free sign at the mall entrance. 2 people were shot dead and the killers weapon jammed by the time he had cleared his weapon he was left with the choice of surrender, deal with return fire or commit suicide, he chose suicide. By FBI estimates 1 million felonies are stopped or prevented by legally owned firearms every year and 98% of the time those legal firearms are not discharged. The right to life is unalienable as is the right to self defense a furtherance of the the right to life. The gun is the great equalizer. It makes the 120lb woman equal to the 250lb rapist, the 80 year old equal to the 20 year mugger and it is much faster than 911.
The concept of the 2nd Amendment came from people who had just secured their freedom from an oppressive government and was actually intended to insure that if the need arose the people of the new country would once again be able to defend themselves from the next would be tyrranical government. Depending on which estimate you want to use in the 1900's between 100 to over 200 million people were killed as a result of gun control by their own governments hand (China twice, Cambodia, Rwanda, Germany, etc). Gun control only works for those that get to keep their guns (criminals aren't too likely to be turning any in) and the 2nd Amendment is the only insurance that any of the other amendments are respected. If we want to ban firearms there is a way, it is a Constitutional convention, it requires 35 states agree to hold and 3/4 agree to change any part of the Constitution. Any other means is anti-Constitutional and seditous.

Amen. People just accuse both ways instead of a reasonable discussion of how to fix this mass shooting problem we have in this country. Any attempt at civilized conversation turns to crap in less than a minute, and a few days later there's another shooting.

There's a major problem here, and many people think the only options are to keep or get rid of the guns. It's childish to think there are only two solutions to the problem like this.

Just so you know, there is no reason to march on the Capitols. You can simply call your state representative and they will make note of your views. If enough in their district express these views, they will act/vote accordingly. This marching stuff is just a dog and pony show. Use the phone and enjoy the day doing something else.

I wouldn't really call those stiff regulations. And again, the ban on assault weapons has expired.

And let me guess, you think you should be able to carry a gun in a bar, right? Makes sense, I guess. After all, alcohol causes conflict and gns resolve it.
Pure genius.

Free speech is limited. For example, you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. It has to do with public safety. Kind of the same way gun regulations have to do with public safety.

Sorry, but separation of church and state is also in the constitution. There is nothing wrong with teaching some principles in the Bible in a non-religious way.

i would love to know why this is being discussed on a recruiting website

Good points and not to argue you points but to give you a picture of what you're up against:

1. Its not a taboo, its that society doesn't care...most of the mentally defunct in this country live under overpassses out of sight of society or institutions. The gov't argues its their civil rights to do so and the truth is the money and resources don't exist to help them so out of sight out of mind.

2. Absolutely assuming they realize they need help.

3. The Newtown shooter's mother was working at clearing those hurdles when he killed her. Big time effort required to institutionalize an adult if they haven't exhibited a clear danger to themselves ot others.

4. I think there is a concerted effort at stopping bullying, at least I hear a lot of commercials on the radio against it.

5. See 1. Almost all mentally ill are not a threat and for the most part unless there is a family effort they are ignored.

There isn't much that can be done before a clear threat is established and there does not seem to be any attention paid to the mentally defect until there is an actual event. I do agree with your points but it seems that it just sits too far down on the priority list with anyone that has the authority to effect a change in the status quo. Its much easier to deflect and blame guns. That way you can split the sides and never come up with an effective solution as that would require effort and $$$. Just for the record the worse school massacre in this countries history did not involve a firearm and on the same day as Sandy Hook a mentally ill man killed more children in an elementary school in China with a knife.

Its an AR-15, and yes it makes a fine self defense firearm