I have high hopes for a civil discourse and debate of the 2nd Amendment in our current society.  I expect strong feelings and opinions from each side of the debate but ask that we treat each other, and the opinions of others with respect.  And that we debate the points rather than denigrate the contributor.

the 2nd guarantees the 1st and the permanence of the entire document from being changed other than by the methods established by the document.

What is there to debate?  A majority conservative court, on a five to four vote, affirmed the "right to bear arms" in the 2007 Heller decision. 

The 2nd amendment is unclear, and one day we can assume a liberal court will revisit it. 

John

Thanks for the perspective.

I think the problem is the exact opposite - the 2nd is quite clear in the context of when it was written and additionally it does not implicitly state that all citizens may own and possess whatever weapon they choose but rather that that they have the right to possess and bear "arms".  

I do not think the 2nd Amendment will ever be reversed or eliminated, but I think it will be limited by the courts or by amendment and not in the very distant future either.

There is plenty of room for discussion, but again thanks for the input

“I do not think the 2nd Amendment will ever be reversed or eliminated, but I think it will be limited by the courts or by amendment and not in the very distant future either.”

Agreed…and as it should be.

Any responsible gun owner should have no issue with any reasonable protocols being enacted in the effort to prevent the unintended but sadly inevitable loss of innocent lives.

The equally inevitable slippery slope arguments notwithstanding. 

the 2nd is quite clear in the context of when it was written

according to who?

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain. This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail.

That is exactly what I said in less technical terms, the contextual issues, the then vs now issues and whether restrictions, which still allow citizens to possess and bear arms in most cases can be resolved.

I did not say it would be easy but a consensus in the middle will be reached and though I likely have not all that many years left, I think it may happen in my lifetime

Thanks again for the perspective

As I said yesterday, the text of all 10 Bill Of Rights amendments put together is less than 500 words.  They all need interpretation. Maybe the founders wanted it that way. 

As I said yesterday, the text of all 10 Bill Of Rights amendments put together is less than 500 words.  They all need interpretation. Maybe the founders wanted it that way. 

If you include the Preamble, it's 652 words.  It was initially longer, the James Madison draft had 20 amendments.  The House reduced it to 17.  The Senate reduced it to 12.  The states ratified the 10.

thats  nice

I wouldn't describe it as nice, but as history.

I thought Id be nice and describe it as nice rather than irrelevant to what I said. 

Irrelevant?  You seemed to be trying to make a point about the document's brevity.  I was pointing out that originally it was more than twice as long.  Also, I would be surprised if many readers here realized that it started out as twenty amendments.  Did you realize that?

I was pointing out that originally it was more than twice as long. 

and that means what exactly?  should the Court rule on what was supposed to be or what is? 

any reasonable protocols being enacted in the effort to prevent the unintended

There’s the rub.     The variance of what is “reasonable” between the two sides of this debate.

I for one have little faith that anything “reasonable” will be enacted by congress that truly protects law abiding gun owners rights.

The gulf of opinions on this is Grand Canyon sized ….

it does not implicitly state that all citizens may own and possess whatever weapon they choose but rather that that they have the right to possess and bear "arms".  

There have been many court cases on similar subjects ("The right to bear arms". "the right of free speech",etc.)

Over time The Supreme Court has basically said that while the government can not take away those rights, that's does not mean it does not have the power to regulate them.

So, for example, because of The Second Amendment, the government can not take away our "right to bar arms". However, they do have the power to regulate that (a citizen has the right to own weapons-- but the government does, for example, have the right to regulate that--- you aren't allowed to have a tactical Nuclear weapon in their possession!

and that means what exactly? 

That perhaps brevity wasn’t an intent. 

should the Court rule on what was supposed to be or what is? 

Did you mean to ask a silly question?

"Any responsible gun owner should have no issue with any reasonable protocols being enacted in the effort to prevent the unintended but sadly inevitable loss of innocent lives."

Most responsible gun owners, who are the vast majority, don't. But irresponsible criminals simply ignore or violate those protocols. 

but I think it will be limited by the courts or by amendment and not in the very distant future either.

I couldn't agree more. I think once public safety is restored and congress can find a consensus on the issue we may see an amendment, but as you say, that is a long way off for either of those things.

The first ten amendments were hotly debated in 1789 between the  Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  If you read the history of those debates you'll see tha WRT the 2nd, they argued about power and authorities between state and the federal government.  Both sides agreed however on two implicit assumptions:

• The Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia.
• The federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. 

Here are some interesting (to me) quotes concerning the 2nd Amendment

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The Second Amendment is just as important as all the other Amendments.” - John Kennedy

“The Second Amendment is just as important as all the other Amendments.” - John Kennedy

And he was right

But no more important than any other - I am right too

Yes, you are

The Second amendment ensures Citizens have the right and ability to defend themselves, their property and their rights. 

It is the citizen's last line of defense.

The Second amendment ensures Citizens have the right and ability to defend themselves, their property and their rights.

But that is not the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. 

The 2nd Amendment was written solely to protect the country itself.  At a time when there was no standing military, the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the country did have a defense ready if called upon. 

Nowadays the entire 1st half of the Amendment is forgotten and/or ignored by too many people.  They make claims about personal defense, defense against the US government, and so on.  It was NOT designed to allow stockpiling of hundreds of weapons, or even to allow people to arm themselves with the intent to attack this country or its people.

  "defense against the US government,"

it says a "free state"; Citizens need to be able to keep it that way. 

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Thank you Texan,  I am a strong supporter of individual rights on both guns and abortion.

Wish I could like your statement more than once!!!

The 2nd Amendment was written solely to protect the country itself.  At a time when there was no standing military, the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the country did have a defense ready if called upon. 

True.

If a foreign army launches an invasion*, in addition to our regular military-- we want to have an armed citizenship at the ready to help defend us!

If a foreign army launches an invasion*, in addition to our regular military-- we want to have an armed citizenship at the ready to help defend us!

During WWII Nazi Germany sent submarines to land spies and saboteurs on Long Island!

The 2nd Amendment was written solely to protect the country itself.  At a time when there was no standing military, the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the country did have a defense ready if called upon. 

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton", The Federalist Papers

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, Congressional debate

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,.." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist ( #28 )

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self defense..." John Adams

The FBI lists well-armed, right-wing, nationalist, racist, militia groups as the largest threat to American democracy. After 1-6, this should not surprise anybody.

It seems to me that Hamas, Iran, its allies like Houthis are providing our current attacks.

“It is the citizen's last line of defense.”

Defense against whom? The government? Or your neighbor?

We have come to a point in our history, in our reality, where serious problems require serious conversation and in understanding all aspects of that dialogue, serious action.

I cannot imagine any serious person believing vigilantism is a serious answer. 

Defense against whom? The government? Or your neighbor?

I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes people fantasize vigilante attacks on people who are constantly posting stupid political comments online!

(Merely fantasizing only verbal attacks...but still...)

🙊

The following statements have been making the rounds for a long time, but still hold true.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that is unclear.

I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that is unclear.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Point to the text of the second amendment where that is included. 

Point to the text of the second amendment where that is included. 

Point out where he said it was part of the 2nd Amendment.  

To my mind, the 2nd relates to the idea that our society is to be a government by the people, for the people and of the people. It is the difference between a people ruled by a few as opposed to ruled by the whole. Whether one agrees with it or likes it, the basis of any government is the gun. Therefore, what one needs to consider is whether they want the threat of force to reside solely with the government or with the people. 

    "Whether one agrees with it or likes it, the basis of any government is the gun."

A person with a gun (or right to get one) stays a citizen

without the right to have one you will end up a serf or worse

The 2nd amendment is but 27 words and 4 punctuation points, but how it is understood depends on the what the individual  thinks it should say  or says to them  (personal opinion?).

Is it an individual right  or a collective right ? That is a question I think was not really broached for over 200 years and until recently the high court avoided making a ruling on , and because of such it was treated as both  for much of the history of this country.

Keep in mind i believe it is a right that existed  before the constitution was even thought of .

I am of the understanding , that there are over 20,000 laws on the books in regards to firearms  that fall under the purview of this amendment  on the local , state and federal level, and the most recent statistic i have seen is that there are 120 firearms for every 100 people  and judging by reports of  legal firearm sales , the number continues to increase monthly.

I can only say what I think , but no one has actually asked me what i  personally think  i can only relay what I actually do. and try to explain why i do so .

Keep in mind i believe it is a right that existed  before the constitution was even thought of .

It did exist long before that

The 2nd amendment is but 27 words and 4 punctuation points, but how it is understood depends on the what the individual  thinks it should say  or says to them  (personal opinion?).

That's probably true of every Amendment.

That's why our Founding fathers created three branches of gov't instead of two-- in addition to Congress (who makes the laws) and The Executive (who executes the Laws) they created a third branch-- The Supreme Court. Its job is to interpret the laws.

I remembered that CONUS is actually the second attempt at coming up with a governing document, so I went and re read the first one, The Articles of Confederation.

The closest I came to anything resembling the current 2nd was contained in article VI of same.

After consideration, I can see some of the reasons things were changed to what they were in the current governing document.

An example would be that under the AoC ,the states had greater autonomy as to their laws in their jurisdictions, but they also had greater costs in certain matters as well.

I hear a lot of comments about what the 2nd amendment does and does not say - let me pose a hypothetical.

“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.” 

I hear people talk about the founding fathers were referring to participation in the militia when they included this amendment, because militias of the time were not streamlined like the National Guard today.  People who were in the militia were largely bringing their own guns and horses and ammunition when they were needed.

That being said - could one infer that all "people" who have the right to be armed also have the responsibility as citizens to be in the National Guard.

Just a thought

Might have to look at us code  composition of the militias .

 The NG is part of the Organized Militia ,what we know today . There are other categories of militia  in US Code title 10 .

 What most people do not know or realize is even if they signed nothing , they fall under those other categories  and are subject to call to service . and that is just on the federal level and some will be very surprised how old the feds can "draft" you .

Now for a real kicker . not only the feds have a line into each and every person that can serve , but so too does the state , for that one would have to check their individual state laws and statutes .

I will use myself and my state and situation as an example .

I am over the induction/recall  age for active federal military service , but only because legislation says so , legislation can be changed to up the age by congress and the president .

Every single contract obligation  for military service, active , reserve and guard has been completed .

So I could if i chose to if they tried to recall me ,  tell the feds to go get stuffed , absent them changing the legislation on the books right now . they do that its a different game then . 

So lets say the feds cant do anything ,My state of Wyoming , has a deal for the NG with the feds as does every state  , even the state cant draft me into the NG because that obligation was already completed in full before i became too old for NG duty.

Some would say i am in the clear,  not so .

Seems my state has provisions  for a different form of militia  that is not subject to US Code  or feds control. and is covered in state statute and law .

My state can draft me into what is called the State Guard ,until i reach the age of 72 ,now dont get confused with the NG , it is totally separate and distinct.

In my state the only one that can form this militia is the governor or the legislature , otherwise it only exists in statute and law , on paper . some catches if its ever formed , it is paid for solely by the state meaning uniforms , arms and training  and pay, unlike the national guard which is shared with the feds . Another catch is it can not be used outside the states boundaries, that may have changed though and it maybe could be used in a situation like FEMA. but FEMA duty is almost always NG territory.

Where does this leave me individually, well  the state can call me until im 72 , no guarantee of equipment , outfitting . training or even pay. so a good chunk of that may fall on myself .

10 yrs active duty in SAC during the end of the cold war guarding priority weapons systems likely would cover the training , just a modification of orders of what im doing .

Equipment , thats going to be a big one . most of which i already have really , i already have a comparable firearm , that the state can both get parts for and mags and ammo , yes it is an AR pattern  chambered for 5.56(not .223 rem) so thats not a problem ,  i also have an AR550 level 3 + vest , as well as surplus LBE and gas mask ,  all still serviceable .

Only things i dont have covered is uniform and pay , but those in this case would be out of my control until i would have to report . 

 Now if this hypothetical situation were to ever become reality , and if it did , so much crap would have to have gone sideways  it wouldnt be funny , i can say i am somewhat prepared and could answer if called .

That being said - could one infer that all "people" who have the right to be armed also have the responsibility as citizens to be in the National Guard.

One could infer a lot of things.

In fact it happens without end in Internet forums, at bars, at dinner tables, etc. 

That's why we have a Supreme Court. When there are different opinions by regular citizens about laws, they have the ultimate say in what the law means.

Krishna

You are obviously correct and I thank you for sharing an astute, concise explanation of the function of the Supreme Court

It's a good thing I have the right to bear arms, cause without them I'd have a lot of difficulty typing with my toes.

Now, if that bit of intended humour doesn't get deleted, this one might:

The Second Amendment is actually a good thing, it helps to keep the population from growing out of control. 

But more seriously:

It does help to pre-train the most powerful army in the world - I'm sure that there are many who volunteer for the armed forces because they can actually be able to legally use guns for what they are actually meant for.  Just think of what Arlo said in 'Alice's Restaurant'.

And Now For Something Completely Different (a la Monty Python)

I do believe it will take a liberal government of all 3 levels and a liberal-majority SCOTUS to change it, but then I'm not schooled on States' Rights on the issue. .

I suppose my opinions might differ if I were an American.

Even with all 3 branches being controlled by what you call "liberal" or what you may think that means, what you mention , still would not come to being .

 The right would still exist even if the amendment didn't.The right existed before the amendment.

None of the 3 branches has the power to change the constitution without input from the states via ratification of any change.

Lastly, the government would not get the needed co-operation, compliance, or consent, and to attempt to do so either under color of law or by force, military or othewise, would kind of prove the need for the amendments protections.

The actual beauty of the 2nd is it does nothing until some one attempts to infringe on it or remove it.

None of the 3 branches has the power to change the constitution without input from the states via ratification of any change.

I was wondering if any Constitutional Amendment had ever been repealed. So I googled it. And of course-- one was, but I had forgotten about it. (The only Amendment ever repealed was, of course, "Prohibition", the 18th Amendment).

Our Founding fathers set up a repeal procedure for Constitutional Amendments which made it difficult to repeal them. (Which is a good thing-- it leads to a more stable government).

My personal opinion is the amendment method is so difficult because the legislative method is all to easy to change on a whim.

Example I can give is pass legislation in Congress that says one thing, then turn around and pass an amendment that totally is opposite to what the legislation was supposed to do, with a lower barrier to cross or achieve.

Now consider the most used amendment process for the USCON, 2/3rd of both houses must vote for it and then 3/4ths of the states must agree to accepted the change.

I like the higher bar to be met.

The actual beauty of the 2nd is it does nothing until some one attempts to infringe on it or remove it.

I often wonder if the only real answer is a constitutional amendment process that rewords and clarifies to our times the founders' intent for the 2nd amendment.

How about we adapt the "framer's intent" to the 21st century?  The framers have been dead for 200 years and counting. 

I have thought of that myself sometimes, but I can never come up with anything that I consider that would be acceptable to all parties involved, using the method to change the amendment let alone repeal it.

If you consider what I said about my states State guard, and how I have provisioned myself, and if it were ever determined that the 2nd was for forming of militias, I would still have exactly what I have , for the reasons required, so it wouldn't change.

And yet, what they framed, is still here.   And regardless of what all the haters here will say, still among the best in the world across the board.

The mechanisms to change the constitution are available to us right now.    Always have been.    What are you waiting for?

Common sense?  Get the hell out of here!

I do believe it will take a liberal government of all 3 levels

Either that-- or enough mass shootings so that a majority gets tired of that.

Get tired of that?  How do people sleep at night with the amount of mass shootings and murders and school shootings and gun violence???   I can't sleep at night on the other side of the world knowing my son is in America and my grandchildren go to school there.  How many people have to die before your countrymen become HUMANS???  I'll quote the words of McKenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada at the end of World War 2 speaking about something entirely different...but.in this case now about the number of gun deaths in America... "NONE IS TOO MANY"  NONE IS TOO MANY!!!

Buzz I read something about a week ago, that will be both good and bad news to you , so I will start with the bad first.

It was reported in what I read that mass shootings were on the rise.

It was also reported that the incidents of gun violence were actually going down and lessening.

What that told me and my take was there were less shootings , but those that were happening were having higher casualties.

Being the contemplative person I am I asked myself how could this be.  The largest reason I could come up with to explain it would be the number of people who over the last few years who decided they would be better off armed.

To be honest, people intent on doing others harm , tend to not pick other people that can do them harm or pick situations where they would fail in their goal.

Good points, but unfortunately, welcome back to the Wild Wild West.

I suppose my opinions might differ if I were an American.

Buzz

I love your insight on issues and the perspective from the outside looking in is sometimes important to an issue whether big or small

And it makes me chuckle sometimes too, thanks for sharing

"I love your insight on issues and the perspective from the outside looking in is sometimes important to an issue whether big or small."

Thank you, Robert, and I really like the kinds of issues that you are posting along with your manner in dealing with them, which I think are a very positive addition to the usual on this site.  However, I don't think that your feelings about what I post are so widely appreciated here.  

There was an "Assault Weapons Ban" in effect for 10 years. However that did invalidate the Second Amendment as it only applied to specific weapons.(So citizens could still purchase, and own, many other types of weapons.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That actually didn't ban anything but magazines.

Any weapon that it affected was either grandfathered, OR those that made them simply didn't add the features from the assault weapon definition in the legislation, thus making basically the same fire arm , not meet the definition the legislation required to be considered an AW, and thus banned, the features they left off were all cosmetic, and had no effect on the function.

So even during the 10 yr ban you could still buy them legally.

Hell I built an AR -15 in the middle of the ban and made sure it was ban compliant, the only 2features it had that were in the definitions list was a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, it needed at least 3 features to be banned.

To be considered a banned weapon , it had to have at least 3 of theses features:

Collapsible stock

Detachable magazine

Pistol grip

Flash hider/suppressor

Bayonet lug

Barrel heat shield ( more for assault shotguns)

Being semi automatic was not counted as one of the features that got the weapon banned.

the features they left off were all cosmetic, and had no effect on the function. So even during the 10 yr ban you could still buy them legally.

There have been several studies as to the effect of that law in reducing gun deaths. What I've read seems to validate what you just mentioned-- apparently the studies research "has been 'inconclusive'".

There have been several studies as to the effect of that law in reducing gun deaths. What I've read seems to validate what you just mentioned-- apparently the studies research "has been 'inconclusive'".

Apparently Australia has tried a different approach-- I'm not too familiar with the details-- or the results. Also IIRC New Zealand-- but I don't know muxh about it.

A number of different places have tried different approaches , unfortunately for the hoplophobes , none would be accepted ,consented to or co operated with by the people in this country opposed to such, gun control activists would have better luck trying to bite a fart bubble in a little blue kiddie pool.

You do know "inconclusive " actually means it either didn't have a measurable effect or it actually had no effect at all.

Here is a nice to know, most gun violence is committed with a hand gun , more than rifles and shotguns combined.

The other thing I found ironic?

Until the 94AWB interest in the AR platform or style guns was not that high, it wasn't until the ban was passed and in place, that people started looking at it with any interest, and what they did find , was the design and platform was highly adaptable to a very wide number of people, they found it was extremely customizable for individual needs . 

Basically the ban brought it out of the shadows and made it intensely popular with the shooting public.

That has to gall the black gun grabbers, they by their actions made it more popular and desirable.

Evening...ahhh no keep us out of it..

We have a completely different outlook, mentally, mind set and regulations when it comes to guns.. especially high powered automatics that you mob use....

Yes those types of weapons are banned here and that suits us just fine...

Port Arthur was enough for us, not to say it can't or won't happen again..but we have done all in our power to try and stop it.

And no, all guns are not banned here as many looney tunes over there try and tell you...my brother is very well armed and a licenced shooter..

We also have large feral animals camels, water buffalo, wild boar, deer etc that are also hunted and no we don't need an AK what ever to do it...(that was another dumb arse argument someone tried we don't have large animals here 🙄🙄)....

If you can't kill what ever after two shots, you are a bloody poor shot and shouldn't own a gun...

Shona, don't make them disdainful of us Commonwealthers for our actually having civilized common sense gun controls.   

Well it is true.

Commonwealthers do have trouble understanding America.    

Enough so that we had to kick their ass out nearly 250 years ago.

especially high powered automatics that you mob use....

This is actually an incorrect statement. The laws that govern ownership / possession of an automatic are high, the cost of ownership is very high and they are actually difficult for the individual to own. Please don't confuse automatic weapons with the common type that is here in the US which is a semi-automatic. A semi-automatic means you pull the trigger once, the weapon fires one cartridge and reloads the chamber so that it's ready to fire again. But it does not fire multiple cartridges which is what an automatic weapon does.

Sparty, you are aware that Canadians are one of the very few countries to face a US invasion , and send US troops home without a victory?

( To Buzz, must be my latent Nova Scotian bloodline growing a wild hair.)

Buzz, no distain from me here, if what works other places works for them , great.

I'm looking at the practicality, those programs used elsewhere ,without use of force to enforce them would not work in the US for many reasons .

Big one is attitude, another is historical culture.

Now factor in this, of AU,Canada, and The US , the US is the only one of the 3 that had to use force of arms to take their independence and sovrenity, the other 2 didn't have to fight a full out war for theirs.

Way I see it, when it comes to the relationship between the US and the commonwealth nations, as a whole or in part, even though separated by a common language and attitudes and cultures, we all have had each other's backs when it really counted, to the mutual benefit for all involved.

Yes, I am aware of the history.    A little disingenuous since they got a bit of assist from the Brits but there you go.   Past history.

They are most welcome to try again though.  

How much help they got from the Brits can be debated, but reading the Articles of Confederation, the then US government considered them separate, and even allowed for Canada to join the states without going through the then method of joining , that would be article XI of that document, Canada declined the offer one could say.

Morning Buzz...not at all..just usual civilised discussion when Australia always seems to get brought up when it comes to guns..

Happy to have guns, don't have a problem with guns, but unfortunately somewhere along the lines "with in reason" seems to have got lost in the States...

We have gun violence here, daily shootings in Melbourne.. usually drug related or under world..quite frankly I am happy if they exterminate each other..

Or up in Sydney large under world Lebanese families are constantly at it..One good thing their numbers are dropping as each family pings each other off...always good news...

Now first major decision for the day...what to have for breakfast??

The US considered Canada separate because of the revolutionary mentality of the time.    We were after all, just like them before the revolution.

Canada just wasn’t tired of being overtaxed and underrepresented yet I guess.  

Well, I was impressed that the tour guide when I toured the White House admitted that it was set on fire by the Brits from Canada, and I have picnicked in the park that commemorates the Battle of Stoney Creek that was the turning point against the American forces back then.

LOL.  In a few minutes I'll start making mine - I think I'll make a cheese omelette, toast with strawberry jam and marmalade, some cherry tomatoes, orange juice and a mug of coffee.  

I couldn't figure out why the word "omelette" got redlined since I always thought it was the correct spelling, so finally I did a search and came up with this:  LINK-> grammarly

I knew I was right all along, because the French spelling is the one that is used in British English (which Canadians and people in other Commonwealth nations learn and use) but the article I linked to also indicated that the right thing to use should depend upon the audience that reads what you are writing, so I guess from now on I'll have to go with the American version of the word, which is omelet. However, I refuse to drop the "U" from words, or stop doubling the "L" in others.  However I fully understand why Webster thought it so necessary to simplify the spelling of words for Americans.