If you are a doctor, and you are sued for malpractice, even if you are proven innocent, your career is over. So doctors all try to cover their ass as much as they can and order every test that MIGHT help prevent a suit from going forth. So as more and more doctors are asking for more tests... Hmm high demand, limited supply... what happens?
If a random stranger stops you in the mall, and asks you for your name, address, phone number, list of hobbies, where you worked, where you went to school, and your religious and political views... would you tell them or say "nuts to that!" and walk past?
I don't see a reason to give people my real name, or any other info. When I'm at Radio Shack, and the employee asks for my phone number... 867-5309. Jenny? Yeah, she's my roommate.
I share my personal life with people I know. Not the world. It has nothing to do with cowardice. More with not liking nosy people.
So what you would say if he was white was that he was robotripping.
The exact same thing. I didn't bring race into it. Person A didn't like Person B watching and/or following them in a public area and decided to beat Person B. Person B was armed and defended himself. Watching a person and/or following a person isn't against the law. It isn't justification to attack a person. There is a ton of evidence that Person A started the attack. There is no evidence that Person B landed a single punch.
Cough syrup with codeine is not available over the counter in the USA. So DXM is a far more like candidate for the active ingredient.
Codeine is preferred... not required. If you read this post, you will see a screenshot of a facebook post by Trayvon trying to get Codeine cough syrup, and a friend suggesting DXM. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044402/posts
Cough syrup is sold behind the counter in some places because people steal it. In my area it is generally left on the shelf in any store I would visit.
No, It's sold behind the counter because it is used in making more potent drugs. That's why you need ID. If it was just because it was being stolen, ID wouldn't be required. Every sale is tracked and if you buy too much the DEA will be notified. Cough syrup without DXM and such are left on the shelf.
Robotripping is not exactly unheard of nor is it that dangerous to anyone save for the user.
Any prolonged drug use has potential for behavior changes.
The drug concoction was a drug called "Lean", "Purple Lean", "Sizzurp", or "Purple Drank". Trayvon's recipe called for Arizona Ice Tea brand Watermelon Fruit-punch cocktail, Cough Syrup (preferably with codeine) and skittles. It's one of the reasons why cough syrup is sold behind the counter.
Feel free to look up "Trayvon Lean facebook" and see posts by Trayvon on making the stuff... Also look up the LA times article "Lil Wayne hospitalized; sizzurp's powerful high, deadly side effects"
George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there.
What kind of crack are you smoking? 1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting....
Following ! = assaulting.
He was on the phone with 911 when he was asked where the suspicious person (person pacing in front of a house). George got out to look. The 911 operator (not a cop) told him he didn't have to look for him, and George said "Ok" and stopped looking. He went across the residential block to get an address, turned back and started to go back to his truck. At that point 911 closed the call.
Trayvon was on the phone too, to his friend Dee-Dee. She stated he made it all the way back to the back yard of the house he was staying at. He then decided to *GO BACK* and confront George, Dee-Dee lost contact when she said she heard a fight break out. We have a timestamp when the call ended.
From when George told the 911 operator he lost sight of Trayvon, to the point when the fight broke out, was 4 minutes. The house Trayvon was staying at was less than 100 yards away. Four minutes was more than enough time to get back home. It is enough time to head home, then decide to head back... And based on Trayvon's social media, he was one to pick a fight with people. This is based on evidence.
We also know that Trayvon's mother sent Trayvon to live with his father because she couldn't control him.
We also know that George didn't land a single punch, or attack until he was able to get his gun out. We also know Trayvon did hit George many times. I don't think you can assault somebody's fist with your face....
Everything points to Trayvon was upset that some guy was watching him and wanted to teach that guy a lesson... And he picked a fight with a person who could defend himself.
People look at net-worth and confuse it with income.
To use somebody's net-worth would mean they would have to liquidate their property. That means sell off their businesses, investments, etc... the things that are making them money. So, sure they could sell off everything they own to get a paradise space station, and have no income to maintain it, or to live any notable lifestyle there.
Or they could keep their businesses, and investments and have a more secure future.
If someone it following you, and then confronts you, then you did not assault them, you defended yourself.
If somebody is following you, then loses track of you, then you to back to confront them, then you assault them, you aren't defending yourself, you are attacking them.
Where does this "Disney was a Nazi" claim come from? Considering that Disney came out with anti-Nazi propaganda films Disney made, Der Fuehrer's Face, and Education for Death... It would seem the opposite.
I know people point to pictures/video of Donald Duck in a Nazi uniform saying "Heil Hitler", but that is from De Fuehrer's Face, where Donald was in a Nazi Munitions factory and forced to feed their war machine... but woke up to find out it was a nightmare, immediately looked at the US flag and the Statue of Liberty and signed up for the US Military to fight against Nazis. The whole cartoon ends with the song "De Fuehrer's Face" where Donald throws rotten tomatoes at Hitler.
Yes, the thing that comes to mind is: Would a doctor encourage abortion more if they can harvest embryonic stems cells... or would they fertilize eggs and have them grow in the lab to be harvested later. If you view life beginning at conception (which many people do, not just Christians), this would be a huge ethically questionable act.
If they are like my poor friends: Yes, they are poor spiteful bastards. Every single one of my old friends could easily follow in my footsteps and get out of their situation. We all had the same hobbies, including computers. That is the path I took. I worked in an Autoshop and when we weren't working on cars, we would be talking about computers, not just games, but moding computers, and even light programing. I quit the Auto-shop and took a tech support job. I earned much more installing RAM into computers than I did installing batteries in cars. I used that extra income to earn a degree in Comp Sci, and I'm now a software engineer. Now I don't consider myself special in anyway to my old friends... In fact I know a few are brighter than I am when it came computer hardware. I could really see one friend go for Computer Engineering or EE. But nope... That would be "selling out".
And if you look at the demographics, or are wrong. The top income brackets are growing. The bottom income brackets are getting smaller. This is what is being used to 'prove' that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer... but that isn't the case at all. Yes the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well. There are now just fewer people in the lower quintile. The poor today can afford much more luxury items than the poor years back. 20-30 years ago, a poor person rarely had a video game console (for example). Today many of the poor do have one.
As somebody else stated: about 40% of the people who are in the lowest 20% stay in the lowest 20%. That means that 60% move up. Also, over 80% of children who grew up in the poor (bottom 20%) household moved to a higher income quintile, and have an income (adjusting for inflation) of about double their parents.
Here are a couple of vids from economic professors: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
So 60% raise out of the bottom 20% -- a majority of the people in that 20% leave it...
The statistic's I've seen shows 80% see their children not only get out of the bottom 20%, but also make about double (average, adjusting for inflation).
Some videos from economic professors: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
I've seen this before... but it's "Undocumented Worker", aka Illegal immigrant work. People lined up hoping to find work for the day, being picked up and paid not by the hour but by the job, which ends up to be less than min-wage in most cases... Pre-Paid cards handed out because it could be obfuscated in the books, and not tracked. This is why I support stronger border security. We are importing a slave class that is paid under the table and abused. We need to bring these people in legally, so they have some legal ground to fight back against unfair practices.
But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before. The biggest issue I saw in "Movin' on up" was crabs in a bucket. A lot of my old 'poor' friends weren't happy to see me get a better job, better skills, and more income (especially that). I am not seen as a role-model, or even anybody to be looked upon favorably. I am looked at as a sell out. I haven't talked to them in years. Last time I had my old friends over, some of my stuff went missing. I'm sure it was rationalized in their mind, but really... I don't need that.
There are aprox 280,000,000 guns in the US. Earlier somebody stated that there are 30,000 deaths per year (in the US?). Some people doubt that number is correct, but we will go with it for now.
Now the ratio of deaths per firearm is 0.01%.
That is an extreme minority. Especally when you consider that guns that commit murder are likely used for multiple murders (that percentage is actually lower).
Now lets look at benefits of gun rights. States and cities with fewer gun control laws have lower burglary rates in the US. Why? Interviews with criminals show their biggest fear, more than being caught by a cop, is being caught by an armed home-owner. This fear reduces the number of crimes committed. And an added bonus: You don't even need to own a gun to have the benefits! Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not. This is why cities like Chicago have increased crime rates when more strict gun laws are passed. Criminals have their fear of finding a gun owner reduced, so they are more likely to commit crimes.
And one more thing to add. The various reports of death by gun per year figures always include suicide. Now the suicide rates from areas with strict gun laws and lax gun laws are about the same, so those people killed wouldn't be 'saved' by more gun laws, they just shift those death totals to different methods of suicide.
"Lives ruined" is kinda hard to track... kinda ambiguous. Cost: Nuclear is normally in the middle for costs (long term). Solar and wind are "cheaper" but take up more property... As for property damage, check out the documentary "Windfall" on Netflix. It is about some unhappy people who agreed to have a windfarm move into their neighborhoods. Biggest complaint is noise and "flicker" caused by turning blades.
Plus I question the environmental damage wind-farms can cause. We are pulling energy out of the wind. That energy is used to create currents and is part of the ecosystem... by altering this by large wind farms, could we potentially prevent moisture from moving from offshore in land? Cause a dustbowl?
As for Nuclear: I really see that as the future. New LFT reactors, for example has waste with a half-life of, 30 years I believe... and have low pressure (no explosions) and the reaction will destabilize itself (no melt down).
Adam Lanza destroyed (or tried to) his computer. Why? There was evidence that showed he plotted this attack on it, and it would work against him if he was captured.
Now if Lanza did premeditate this attack, why would you think his mother being not having guns would have stopped him? He saw her guns as the quickest route to this goals. If she didn't have guns, he would have used another route. Even if all firearms were banned, he could have used Molotov cocktails in the class room. The worst mass killing in the US was not caused by guns, but by a bomb
Trying to stop crazy people by passing crazy laws... that's crazy.
The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.
So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).
And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).
Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.
Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"
and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.
Slashdot Mirror
They are afraid they will get sued.
If you are a doctor, and you are sued for malpractice, even if you are proven innocent, your career is over. So doctors all try to cover their ass as much as they can and order every test that MIGHT help prevent a suit from going forth. So as more and more doctors are asking for more tests... Hmm high demand, limited supply... what happens?
If a random stranger stops you in the mall, and asks you for your name, address, phone number, list of hobbies, where you worked, where you went to school, and your religious and political views... would you tell them or say "nuts to that!" and walk past?
I don't see a reason to give people my real name, or any other info. When I'm at Radio Shack, and the employee asks for my phone number... 867-5309. Jenny? Yeah, she's my roommate.
I share my personal life with people I know. Not the world. It has nothing to do with cowardice. More with not liking nosy people.
So what you would say if he was white was that he was robotripping.
The exact same thing. I didn't bring race into it. Person A didn't like Person B watching and/or following them in a public area and decided to beat Person B. Person B was armed and defended himself. Watching a person and/or following a person isn't against the law. It isn't justification to attack a person. There is a ton of evidence that Person A started the attack. There is no evidence that Person B landed a single punch.
Cough syrup with codeine is not available over the counter in the USA. So DXM is a far more like candidate for the active ingredient.
Codeine is preferred... not required. If you read this post, you will see a screenshot of a facebook post by Trayvon trying to get Codeine cough syrup, and a friend suggesting DXM.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044402/posts
Cough syrup is sold behind the counter in some places because people steal it. In my area it is generally left on the shelf in any store I would visit.
No, It's sold behind the counter because it is used in making more potent drugs. That's why you need ID. If it was just because it was being stolen, ID wouldn't be required. Every sale is tracked and if you buy too much the DEA will be notified. Cough syrup without DXM and such are left on the shelf.
Robotripping is not exactly unheard of nor is it that dangerous to anyone save for the user.
Any prolonged drug use has potential for behavior changes.
The drug concoction was a drug called "Lean", "Purple Lean", "Sizzurp", or "Purple Drank". Trayvon's recipe called for Arizona Ice Tea brand Watermelon Fruit-punch cocktail, Cough Syrup (preferably with codeine) and skittles. It's one of the reasons why cough syrup is sold behind the counter.
Feel free to look up "Trayvon Lean facebook" and see posts by Trayvon on making the stuff... Also look up the LA times article "Lil Wayne hospitalized; sizzurp's powerful high, deadly side effects"
George Zimmerman would never have seen prosecution if he was black or Trayvon was white; guilty or not the evidence just wasn't there.
What kind of crack are you smoking? 1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting....
Following ! = assaulting.
He was on the phone with 911 when he was asked where the suspicious person (person pacing in front of a house). George got out to look. The 911 operator (not a cop) told him he didn't have to look for him, and George said "Ok" and stopped looking. He went across the residential block to get an address, turned back and started to go back to his truck. At that point 911 closed the call.
Trayvon was on the phone too, to his friend Dee-Dee. She stated he made it all the way back to the back yard of the house he was staying at. He then decided to *GO BACK* and confront George, Dee-Dee lost contact when she said she heard a fight break out. We have a timestamp when the call ended.
From when George told the 911 operator he lost sight of Trayvon, to the point when the fight broke out, was 4 minutes. The house Trayvon was staying at was less than 100 yards away. Four minutes was more than enough time to get back home. It is enough time to head home, then decide to head back... And based on Trayvon's social media, he was one to pick a fight with people. This is based on evidence.
We also know that Trayvon's mother sent Trayvon to live with his father because she couldn't control him.
We also know that George didn't land a single punch, or attack until he was able to get his gun out. We also know Trayvon did hit George many times. I don't think you can assault somebody's fist with your face....
Everything points to Trayvon was upset that some guy was watching him and wanted to teach that guy a lesson... And he picked a fight with a person who could defend himself.
Good idea Comcast! What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe the tunnel is us being pulled out of the Matrix, and the people we know that passed on before us are there waiting for us...
People look at net-worth and confuse it with income.
To use somebody's net-worth would mean they would have to liquidate their property. That means sell off their businesses, investments, etc... the things that are making them money. So, sure they could sell off everything they own to get a paradise space station, and have no income to maintain it, or to live any notable lifestyle there.
Or they could keep their businesses, and investments and have a more secure future.
He should wear a red & white striped shirt and hat on the next interview.
If someone it following you, and then confronts you, then you did not assault them, you defended yourself.
If somebody is following you, then loses track of you, then you to back to confront them, then you assault them, you aren't defending yourself, you are attacking them.
Where does this "Disney was a Nazi" claim come from? Considering that Disney came out with anti-Nazi propaganda films Disney made, Der Fuehrer's Face, and Education for Death... It would seem the opposite.
I know people point to pictures/video of Donald Duck in a Nazi uniform saying "Heil Hitler", but that is from De Fuehrer's Face, where Donald was in a Nazi Munitions factory and forced to feed their war machine... but woke up to find out it was a nightmare, immediately looked at the US flag and the Statue of Liberty and signed up for the US Military to fight against Nazis. The whole cartoon ends with the song "De Fuehrer's Face" where Donald throws rotten tomatoes at Hitler.
Yes, the thing that comes to mind is: Would a doctor encourage abortion more if they can harvest embryonic stems cells... or would they fertilize eggs and have them grow in the lab to be harvested later. If you view life beginning at conception (which many people do, not just Christians), this would be a huge ethically questionable act.
People were being sold socialized medicine... but many didn't want it.
I would much prefer transparency in medicine, insurance, and allow insurance to be purchased across state lines.
Appears to come from modifying adult blood-forming stem cells. Adult stem cells have little to no controversy.
If they are like my poor friends: Yes, they are poor spiteful bastards. Every single one of my old friends could easily follow in my footsteps and get out of their situation. We all had the same hobbies, including computers. That is the path I took. I worked in an Autoshop and when we weren't working on cars, we would be talking about computers, not just games, but moding computers, and even light programing. I quit the Auto-shop and took a tech support job. I earned much more installing RAM into computers than I did installing batteries in cars. I used that extra income to earn a degree in Comp Sci, and I'm now a software engineer. Now I don't consider myself special in anyway to my old friends... In fact I know a few are brighter than I am when it came computer hardware. I could really see one friend go for Computer Engineering or EE. But nope... That would be "selling out".
And if you look at the demographics, or are wrong. The top income brackets are growing. The bottom income brackets are getting smaller. This is what is being used to 'prove' that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer... but that isn't the case at all. Yes the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well. There are now just fewer people in the lower quintile. The poor today can afford much more luxury items than the poor years back. 20-30 years ago, a poor person rarely had a video game console (for example). Today many of the poor do have one.
As somebody else stated: about 40% of the people who are in the lowest 20% stay in the lowest 20%. That means that 60% move up. Also, over 80% of children who grew up in the poor (bottom 20%) household moved to a higher income quintile, and have an income (adjusting for inflation) of about double their parents.
Here are a couple of vids from economic professors:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
So 60% raise out of the bottom 20% -- a majority of the people in that 20% leave it...
The statistic's I've seen shows 80% see their children not only get out of the bottom 20%, but also make about double (average, adjusting for inflation).
Some videos from economic professors:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
I've seen this before... but it's "Undocumented Worker", aka Illegal immigrant work. People lined up hoping to find work for the day, being picked up and paid not by the hour but by the job, which ends up to be less than min-wage in most cases... Pre-Paid cards handed out because it could be obfuscated in the books, and not tracked. This is why I support stronger border security. We are importing a slave class that is paid under the table and abused. We need to bring these people in legally, so they have some legal ground to fight back against unfair practices.
But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before. The biggest issue I saw in "Movin' on up" was crabs in a bucket. A lot of my old 'poor' friends weren't happy to see me get a better job, better skills, and more income (especially that). I am not seen as a role-model, or even anybody to be looked upon favorably. I am looked at as a sell out. I haven't talked to them in years. Last time I had my old friends over, some of my stuff went missing. I'm sure it was rationalized in their mind, but really... I don't need that.
There are aprox 280,000,000 guns in the US. Earlier somebody stated that there are 30,000 deaths per year (in the US?). Some people doubt that number is correct, but we will go with it for now.
Now the ratio of deaths per firearm is 0.01%.
That is an extreme minority. Especally when you consider that guns that commit murder are likely used for multiple murders (that percentage is actually lower).
Now lets look at benefits of gun rights. States and cities with fewer gun control laws have lower burglary rates in the US. Why? Interviews with criminals show their biggest fear, more than being caught by a cop, is being caught by an armed home-owner. This fear reduces the number of crimes committed. And an added bonus: You don't even need to own a gun to have the benefits! Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not. This is why cities like Chicago have increased crime rates when more strict gun laws are passed. Criminals have their fear of finding a gun owner reduced, so they are more likely to commit crimes.
And one more thing to add. The various reports of death by gun per year figures always include suicide. Now the suicide rates from areas with strict gun laws and lax gun laws are about the same, so those people killed wouldn't be 'saved' by more gun laws, they just shift those death totals to different methods of suicide.
Since you asked:
Deaths per terawatt hour (from nextbigfuture.com )
Coal – world average: 161
Coal – China: 278
Coal – USA: 15
Oil: 36
Natural Gas: 4
Biofuel/Biomass: 12
Peat: 12
Solar: 0.44
Wind: 0.15
Hydro: 0.10
Nuclear: 0.04
"Lives ruined" is kinda hard to track... kinda ambiguous.
Cost: Nuclear is normally in the middle for costs (long term). Solar and wind are "cheaper" but take up more property... As for property damage, check out the documentary "Windfall" on Netflix. It is about some unhappy people who agreed to have a windfarm move into their neighborhoods. Biggest complaint is noise and "flicker" caused by turning blades.
Plus I question the environmental damage wind-farms can cause. We are pulling energy out of the wind. That energy is used to create currents and is part of the ecosystem... by altering this by large wind farms, could we potentially prevent moisture from moving from offshore in land? Cause a dustbowl?
As for Nuclear: I really see that as the future. New LFT reactors, for example has waste with a half-life of, 30 years I believe... and have low pressure (no explosions) and the reaction will destabilize itself (no melt down).
But after Windows 9 Mobile is finished, it is going to be ported over to desktop PC's, so indirectly he will be in charge of the whole project.
Adam Lanza destroyed (or tried to) his computer. Why? There was evidence that showed he plotted this attack on it, and it would work against him if he was captured.
Now if Lanza did premeditate this attack, why would you think his mother being not having guns would have stopped him? He saw her guns as the quickest route to this goals. If she didn't have guns, he would have used another route. Even if all firearms were banned, he could have used Molotov cocktails in the class room. The worst mass killing in the US was not caused by guns, but by a bomb
Trying to stop crazy people by passing crazy laws... that's crazy.
8 6 7 5 3 o 9
The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.
The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.
So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).
And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).
Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.
Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"
and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.
Why to to all the trouble with making fake fingers when all you need are gummi bears
Bypass security. Tasty snack. It's the two-in-one product of modern technology!
CCP Grey had a good piece on this: Linky
Only merit I see is newspaper opinion pieces about fixing droughts/global warming by ending the "extra" hour of daylight.