Governments do love to try to "program" us.

Who are the most miserable people in the world? The so-called liberals.

To fool the people you have to control the language. So, Marxists took the word "liberal" and warped its meaning to apply to themselves. When "liberal" became a pejorative, they called themselves "progressive". Today's true conservative (not Republican) is a 19th century liberal. Reagan was wrong about today's liberals being the Tories, however. Today's liberal is more like a nihilistic Jacobin.

Absolutely. Vigilante justice is justice that corrupts.

Classes are fixed in most other countries by virtue of birth. The children of nobility are nobles. Those of low caste will have children of low caste and there is nothing that can change it. Classes in America are extremely mobile both upward and downward across generations. A wealthy man may have children who become poor because of their foolish actions. A poor man can become wealthy and powerful because of his talent and hard work. The poor who war against the wealthy destroy their future hope of being wealthy themselves.

Cynical is the proper way to view humanity given our 5000 odd year track record of "civilization". The most upright, honest, respectable person with the best of intentions will become corrupted with too much power. Our founding fathers were the philosophical children of Locke and Hobbes. Our resident socialists are obviously believers in Rousseau and the "noble savage".

A torpid imbecile makes a perfect subject, but a very poor citizen. That our government would prefer that we would be torpid imbeciles shows they are not terribly interested in a democratic form of government. They simply want to rule and want us to be ruled.

This is known in economics as creative destruction. The entrepreneur innovates and creates something new and at the same time destroys some or all of the value of something older that it replaces. That is how we achieve economic growth. The socialist and labor unionist would freeze the economy and let it stagnate just so he could keep his little piece of the pie (security). What they don't understand is that the pie can get bigger for everyone if they take a chance and let capitalism work.

Seung-hui Cho did not conform to society's expectations at Virginia Tech. Timothy McVeigh was a non-conformist as well. The Unabomber was certainly a non-conformist. So, not all acts of "uniqueness of thought and action" are always beneficial either to the non-conformist or society. This quote simply cannot stand alone as either right or wrong until we know what JFK's subject was.

...and the twentieth century had its limousine liberals, and the twenty-first its moveon.org-George Soros progressives. Some things never change.

Helorat nailed it. You cannot have liberty without inalienable rights. Your rights are either granted to you by government (subject to change at the whim of our rulers) or by God (I am the Lord thy God, and I change not). You'd better hope there's a God when Hillary Clinton starts doling out or reigning in your "rights".

Science has far from proven otherwise. It seems that even chimpanzees engage in war with other "tribes" of chimpanzees. Is it societal pressure that leads them to war? War is a base instinct in human beings and better social methods and governments will not fix the problem because those methods and governments are made up of flawed human beings. Power will always corrupt eventually, and corruption leads to war.

I'll bet that sign worked better than a "gun free zone" sign.

A. from Reston makes a good argument for concealed carry. The criminal should not know who has or does not have a gun. He should know that one out of ten of his victims will be armed and may kill him. He might decide he doesn't want to play Russian roulette. Reston is also right about brandishing a weapon. If you draw it, you should be prepared to kill with it. That's how you win the war against crime. If not, perhaps the police should disarm as well as us lowly peon citizens.

In eighteenth century parlance, well-regulated simply meant well behaved: that is law abiding citizens. Federal statute also defines a militia as follows: TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes -STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

What radical, right-wing, gun nuts those founding fathers were! God love 'em. If it weren't for their affection for guns, we'd be sipping tea and eating crumpets (whatever they are).

Canadians should have had that right affirmed in a written constitution. Custom just doesn't quite do it.

Make that a "0" please.

Collectives are wonderful things...for bee hives and ant hills. They will, however, destroy the very essence of humanity and turn men into miserable, soulless animals.

"...who take up arms to preserve their property..." May God have mercy on government bureaucrats.

Pax superiore vi telarum.

Leftists can't tolerate opposition. That's because their arguments are so weak and intellectually bankrupt.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer [for Hitler], our police more efficient [for Hitler], and the world will follow our lead into the future [follow Hitler]!" - Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany...............Crazed mob indeed. Both Lenin and Hitler knew what an armed people meant-liberty. That's why totalitarians everywhere want to disarm loyal, law-abiding citizens.

If a robber doesn't have a gun is he necessarily harmless? A robber can beat you with his fists, just as a lawyer can beat you with his mind.

Government has been pouring water on that spark of nobility for a very long time via the public re-education system. Early American history and civics have all but disappeared from today's government schools to be replaced by prophylactics on bananas and Al Bore propaganda movies on globull warming. Those that have that spark had to light it themselves through self-education.