Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Oh Bel, you have no concept of what you speak, but know this one thing, the enemy need not realize he's dead, but rest assured he/she is  surely just as dead, & most importantly we know they are.

Shout out your fear.....you must have battalions full of whining lil gurley-men that never ever needed to complete surreptitious missions, behind enemy lines, & return to proudly serve another day.

Snipers have extremely reduced usage but for one situation, urban wars kind of Saravejo scenario by killing indiscriminately civilians as part of terrorist tactics. Regular armies are not allowed, by moral and civilized conventions, to use terrorist tactics and you don't win a war by killing all them, one by one, from a safe distance.

In the future the only thing to fight will be drones and robots and against it there are no moral rules.

Too bad you weren't advising the Viet Cong, back in the day…

This is pure fantasy

Oh Bel, you have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what you speak, but know this one thing, the enemy need not realize he's dead, but rest assured he/she is  surely just as dead, & most importantly we know they are.

Bel, you sure are one funny, imaginative dude!!!!

The morality, or effectiveness, of snipers in modern warfare has nothing to do with the OP's initial question.

Google is undisputedly  the number one search engine in the world.  No other search platform can match it.  It has an estimated 1,100,000,000 unique monthly visitors.

So what happens when the words “gun control” is typed into their “Google Trends?”

For starters, what is Google Trends?  “Google Trends is a public web facility of Google Inc., based on Google Search, that shows how often a particular search-term is entered relative to the total search-volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages.”

Now, back to gun control.

The Truth About Guns posted a Google Trend search that shows besides a huge spike in interest immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting in December of 2012 and early 2013, not that many people are interested in stricter gun laws........

More Here

With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association’s focus at this week’s annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.

The nation’s largest gun-rights group, which officially opens its meeting of about 70,000 people Friday in Indianapolis, wants Congress to require that concealed weapons permits issued in one state be recognized everywhere, even when the local requirements differ. Advocates say the effort would eliminate a patchwork of state-specific regulations that lead to carriers unwittingly violating the law when traveling......continued

Nationalism irks me. A bunch of silly talk about nothing.

Perhaps why I chose to quote Woodrow Wilson? Plenty of talk of how to fight in war and pseudo-morals therein but no talk of how to prevent it by simply adjusting what we think (or our senseless pride) to accommodate other views.

Sounds like a     Grass Roots Ground Breaking    for a new topic!?

If it needs people in 9 figures to go about like cowboys on top of police and military you have a big and deep rooted problem.

First off might I say, a Nullification -- any Nullification -- that succeeds is no longer theory, it's becomes a valid process of law.

The Constitutional Path
Madison’s Alternative: In the Virginia Resolutions, Madison asserted the power of states “to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.” This meant various state actions designed to arouse public opposition, challenge federal actions, and ultimately change or stop the objectionable action. Recent state Health Care Freedom Acts, not to mention subsequent legal challenges and pending elections, are good examples of state action challenging Obamacare.

The Constitutional Way to Change Laws: Rejecting nullification as an option does not mean that the states or the people have no recourse. The Constitution itself lays out the best path to change unconstitutional laws: object to the law and change opinions (and political leadership) in the political process, defund and slow its implementation, change or repeal the law, challenge it in the courts, and, if necessary, amend the Constitution.

In this land there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians; Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims (and a great many others…) and, of course, Atheists! The moral views of each are -within the confines of the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution), and applicable federal law- to be respected, aren't they?

Yet still you'd insist everyone accept your libertarian views!

And it still seems best to me: Subsidiarity! And Liberty!
I don't see how we can keep the latter without the former…

Unfortunately ensbb3, nationalism ifs embedded deeply in your land. It of course goes with the superficial name of patriotic but in practice is just as too much nationalism as many other countries have. Somehow people have been educated to think differently. This childish stuff wanting to run about armed doesn't do much for the slogan of being the land of the free and home of the brave. If it needs people in 9 figures to go about like cowboys on top of police and military you have a big and deep rooted problem. Wish it was not like that.

Oakdale seem to think this is a Progressive thing, arguing against Nullification, but it isn't.

Likewise, same-sex marriage is -until and unless the Constitution is amended- the purview of the states.

The reason that's incorrect is there are so many rights and protections to marriage, even at the Federal level [,] that it became a 14th amendment issue.

As with most "interpreters" of the 14th, you only read Section 1.; which is a convenient way of ignoring its circumstances and intent.
Would that politicians could speak "in language understanded of the people." Much mischief might have been avoided…

Do you not think they could have made it narrower if it was merely designed to prevent reoccurrence of slavery. It was broad on purpose.

I will not have states denying this for sake of states rights.

It's not as broad as you'd have it, I think. It wasn't designed merely to ban slavery but to grant citizenship to former slaves, and to codify that status fully. I know you feel strongly about "gay marriage" (and the ERA too?) but judicial fiat is a poor substitute for the amendment process…or even federal legislation

We have one Federal judge after another disagreeing with you. This includes conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. Why is this?