And who shall we blame for the young, poorly educated students who want to tear down society?

@dead_rabbit You tell me. All I know for sure is that somewhere along the line a high school diploma was not enough to get a simple office job. Young people are channeled into post secondary education and graduating without basic skills or knowledge. To add insult to injury they are now stuck with crippling debt. You tell me dead_rabbit, who is to blame?

@Missingu Millenials will blame the Baby Boomers for their woes, claiming this generation inherited a rich and robust country only to bankrupt it with their own reckless greed and excess. The bitterness and hate comes from this belief, and I happen to think a lot of it is justified.

But what the baby boomers also did was fail miserably to teach their children discipline, respect and humility. They allowed too much of this responsibility to be taken over by our government, the public school system. Maybe the excessive and materialistic behavior of the boomer generation and a lazy lack of interest in exactly WHO was raising their children, created the little millenial monsters we complain about today.

I think 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' means even if they fuck you over. Feeling justified to retaliate is more 'eye for an eye'.

@LeftInExile
Think what you want.
“Do Unto Others as you would have them do unto you.”
Requires that you believe that
“Others are doing unto you as they would have done unto them.”
So, to reiterate, if someone deliberately steps on my toes ... (notice my use of “deliberate” as in, with malice)

The “Eye for an Eye” Law was established under Hammurabi sometime around 1800 BCE and included accidental dismemberment by someone at the same Social or Financial status as yourself ... otherwise, there were large cash settlements provided for those of a Lower Status predicated on the concept of “need”. This was actually a reiteration of a previous Law by Nebuchadnezzar with a bit more specificity. Both of these are available on their original tablets & stone stells in their original cuneiform formats ...

Sorry, you need to spend a good bit of time looking into history and the law before you can offer an opinion of merit.

I agree ... mostly ... with what you’ve put here though Demere (below) has a point.
Except;
“Guns or even regulations wouldn't be an issue if not for bad people using guns to kill people.”

Government has an “issue” with guns.
The 2nd Amendment was specifically written to enable the Citizenry to be able to arm themselves to an extent of achieving parity with Government Forces such that if the Government goes nuts, the Citizenry can overthrow it by Force of Arms ... obviously, most Lifelong Government Officials are likely to be uncomfortable with the concept of John Q. Public putting a round through their head.
The more corrupt the “Official” the more likely they are to want guns to be an “ISSUE”.

That is, unless you are willing to consider a Corrupt Government ... or Government Official ... to be part of your definition of; “Bad People” ...

In which case I agree.

@Bay0Wulf, fair point on guns--more complete, but we're not close to 'arm themselves to an extent of achieving parity with Government forces'. Dramatically outgunned. Doesn't change the intent of 2A. I see value in the right to defend yourself and even your stuff, really. Also, there's an implicit threat of violence that girds (not sure I've ever used that word in a sentence before) law or rules, and we pretend that's not the case, but it is ultimately. I have no disagreement about bad people in Government...

@chuckpo
While I agree we would have a problem achieving actual “parity” with the Government in “quality”, there are a few things to consider,
#1. There are actually MANY more Armed Citizens than there are Members of the Armed Services (and you could pretty much exclude the Navy and Air Force except in some limited fashion). (Assuming they would engage on the side of the Gov.)
#2. Even were ALL the various LEOs added to the above, there would STILL be an overwhelming number of Armed Citizens. (Assuming that they would engage on the side of the Gov.)
#3. If a Revolution were to actually occur, there is a Pretty Large Question as to which “side” the Armed Services would decide to serve. I believe they took the same oath I did where I swore to “Uphold the Constitution of the United States” and most of “Us” are highly disturbed by the fact the Constitution is Factually being undermined.

If the US Citizenry is pushed to the point that they feel they MUST Act ... the idea that the. Government will win is a far from foregone conclusion.

@Bay0Wulf, I think one factor you're missing from your scenario is who among the citizenry are willing to be the ones on the front line dying until the military runs out of ordinance. Underlying your position is mountains of dead citizens. They'll be well-shielded against small-arms fire. We would not be well-shielded against their weapons' capabilities. We may win in a pure battle of attrition, but if we did it would be standing on the backs of our dead--literally. The loss would be among the worst in history, I think. And, I don't know if enough people would have the resolve. We're pretty fat and comfy--most of us have grown up spoiled and soft. I don't know. I'm just speculating. But, it would be really bad. Of course, we'd be in a better position if large chunks of the military split, which could happen.

@chuckpo
I’m not saying it would be cheap.
I think though that you seem to be missing something...
#1. There are a lot of ex-military Citizens.
#2. Locals know the “ground” better.
#3. The likelihood of Citizens getting into a “Front Line” situation is pretty low. Guerilla tactics are much more fluid.
#4. I would think the record of Our Opposition in the Middle East (especially Afghanistan) and Southeast Asia (Vietnam) should cause one to think about that very carefully ... how long have Our Troops been stymied by a relatively small group of dedicated fighters?

@Bay0Wulf, I guess we could hope the resolve of the enemy would be low. In the case of places like Afghanistan, the US citizenry is fairly intolerant of losses--is willing to accept more losses over time, but relatively few in one go--financial cost and destruction of 'artifacts' also create pressures.. That's 'stymied' progress more than the opposition, in my opinion. How much or how little resolve would a Government that's turned against us have? I don't know. Anyway, interesting, but I think we veered away from the basic topic.

Right if you walk into a room with the thought they are all ---- or here we go ---- or how can i teach-----
Then you are the loser of much knowledge to be learned. One of my best friends is a stoner and alcoholic he can teach you everything about taxidermy and lot's about hunting. Think you my never need get lost in the woods and see.