No, I'm a realist.

Civilization is built by successful men, standing on the backs of unsuccessful men, all of them doing it in the quest for women and reproduction.

Men build society, women don't.

Therefore, when women are promiscuous and no longer require high standards for sex, the average man only works hard enough to achieve the new, lower, standard. Society slows in advancement.

Men seeking sex, on the other hand, is the very thing that drives the advancement of civilization.

So no, I'm not a chauvinist, I'm a person who recognizes that men and women are different; they have different biological drives. This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but unfortunately PC-ism has caused many brains to become dysfunctional.

Perhaps you would have to know something about the book to critique it.

It's a historical analysis, from Babylonia to (at the time) modern history, documenting the (at the least) correlation between female promiscuity and decline of societal advancement.

So, yes. Gravity hasn't changed since 1600, but world history pre 1930 hasn't changed that much since 1930 either.

So because 90+% of a group behave a certain way, that must not be true because you can find a handful who don't?

Ya.. um.. sure... I'm glad you think you have a point there.

A completely different time? So you've found work since then that demonstrates Unwin's work as incorrect?

I guess gravity is "[from] a completely different time" as it was published back in the 1600's, right?

Casual sex (degradation of standards that hold women to pre-marital chastity) is an indicator of the decline of a society.

You'll be very interested to read "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, published 1934 in the UK (should be out of copyright now and there might be a few places you can DL it).

Perhaps it's a philosophical difference as well.

If someone threatens me with deadly force (a knife in this example), they have forfeited their right to life. As such, I can cause them no further harm than they have already caused themselves.

Mind you, I do meet force with force. If the mugger is coming at me, they'll get 2+1. If they simply brandish a weapon, I'll brandish mine in return.

There is a significant difference between the meanings of "Dangerous" and "Lethal."

Firearms are no more dangerous than a table saw.

However, Firearms are much more lethal than a table saw, which is why they are commonly used to project force.

Meh, while I made no assumption about the name or existence of your dog, I did make an assumption about your English skills.

Of course, that's your property and your free to impose your will to restrict who has access to set foot on your property. But you didn't specify "in your home" you stated "keep them away from me" which is a different thing entirely. You're free to say that nobody bearing a firearm can enter your property, but considering you will venture outside of your own property that's a long shot from "keep[ing] [guns] away from me"

The Constitution is not a living document. That the founding fathers decided that the "right to bear arms" is an inalienable right, and codified so in the Constitution, is the law of the land until such time that an Amendment is passed to change the Constitution. It does not matter what laws beneath the Constitution have been passed since that time. The Constitution is not up for interpretation (because it is up for Amendment).

Quite interesting. But that never could have been the intent of the 2nd Amendment viewed in the context of the rest of the Constitution:

1.10.(p)3:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

As such, the militia in the 2nd Amendment could not have applied to a state regulated militia. It applied to the common people.

Actually, the purpose of a gun is to provide the potential for deadly force regardless of the physical size of the wielder. A gun can serve it's purpose without being fired, and even without being unholstered.

It's like speed limit signs. They don't keep you from speeding, but what will happen to you if you ignore them does.

You realize I'm Ex-Army, correct? The 5.56 round was designed to maim/injure for specific reasons. It can kill, but it is unlikely to do so without multiple rounds. It's penetration and ballistic profile are, frankly, crap compared to the 7.62.

I want a larger caliber because if I am to personally use a firearm as a civilian, I'm not worried about questioning, pressuring support logistics, or any of the battlefield reasons that went into choosing the 5.56. I want the person at the end of my sights dead with little chance of counterattack.

Registration is infringement, as registration lists have already been used as seizure lists. Check the history of the AWB in California.

Because, frankly, you can't stomach the idea that "civilized" society still requires violence to function. It's just that in "civilized" society we appoint a segment of our society to perform the violence necessary for safety instead of each individual providing said violence themselves.

Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.

But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.

Yeah.. that damn cognitive dissonance again.

That's a semantics difference. I don't consider "shooting the mugger who was coming at me with a knife" as "harm".

Hrm, let's look that over:

MYTH: Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.

Fact: I lied, they have gone up, but we're going to blame other things instead. The usual misdirection we see from progressives.

MYTH: Supporting welfare is a burden causing financial hardship to working class Americans.

Fact: Yes, we could reduce taxes by 12% by reducing these programs, but look! Let's misdirect and blame the rich this time! That damn top 1% of earners are earning money! WAAAA!

MYTH: Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.

Fact: I never made this clam, and generally don't care if they're using the system (stealing my money) or abusing the system (stealing more of my money).

MYTH: Welfare dependency is the result of the moral failings of poor people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control.

Fact: It's cause by 1) living beyond your means and not making a safety net 2) poor planing 3) bad impulse control.

MYTH: People are poor because they are lazy.

"Single parents on welfare are certainly not lazy: ask any parent how "restful" it is to be at home with a small child!"

Considering that I've been both a full time worker and a stay at home parent... I'd take stay at home parent any day. Damn easiest "job" I've ever had.

"All parents, not only welfare mothers, should have the choice of staying home to care for their own children"

Only if they can afford to do so. Otherwise they should do what they need to do to support the family, or manage to live more within their means.

MYTH: Welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character.

"A study by the Cato Institute claimed to prove that welfare paid better than work (at least, low-wage work) therefore logically no one would choose to work if they could go on welfare! The study, however, was later shown to be flawed."

The flawed link no longer works. And I agree that some would still work (just as some will always take advantage), basic human behavior dictates that those between the extremes will shift towards accepting welfare.

"In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup""

The black family would have much to say about that. Oh, wait, they don't break up because they were never married in the first place. But momma does kick daddy out of the house because it is in her best financial interest to do so (he can't earn enough to replace the government subsidies).

So, they US is going to see what the UK already does (from my link, which you apparently ignored):

Yes, there will always be those who game the system, and there will always be those who refuse to game.

But what about the masses between those two extremes?

The easier it becomes to game the system and the harder it becomes to "play fair" by doing ones own work, more and more people will begin to game the system.

Think about it as similar to the history of divorce. (Virtually) Nobody got divorced 60 years ago. There was a huge social stigma against it and the laws did not make it easy to do; therefore most married couples worked through tough times in their marriages. Later the social stigma relaxed (the social pressure to remain married lessened) and more people took the route of divorce (gamed the system) rather than do things the right way and working though tough marital patches. Today, the only reason the divorce rate isn't exponential is because so few people are even getting married in the first place. People are so lax in their though of marriage that young people will talk about their "Starter husband/wife"

So yes, after this change there will be those who will game the system no matter what and those who will support themselves no matter what; but there will also be a much larger portion of those between deciding it is in their best interests to game the system and live off of other's labor.

Really?

Should be, but won't be.

Why? Because the majority of voters have decided that they want to take their neighbors money. And our government is going to do what gets them reelected.

1) Perhaps you should:
A) Find out what "well regulated militia" means (it's not what you think it is).
B) Find out who was in the militia at the time of the 2nd Amendment (hrm.. every man over the age of 18).
C) Explain how "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" uses "people" in a different meaning than the rest of the bill of rights.
D) Talk to an English teacher sometime and have them remove the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Everything before the comma is the explanation WHY this right is so important. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we were always citizens and never subjects.

2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw. Either one can cause great harm when used improperly, but rarely causes harm when used properly.

3) Damn straight I prefer 7.62 over 5.56. 5.56 is designed to wound. 7.62 is designed to kill. If I need to use my rifle I'm not concerned with creating battlefield casualties to strain the logistics and support of the enemy, I'm concerned with killing people dead so they can't counterattack.