I like the parallels that I have been seeing to the right to drive a car - Take a test to show that you at least understand basic safety , have a functioning registration database , and require gun owners to carry insurance - to pay for the medical bills and funerals of gun victims.

"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." It appears you have never read this before. Use a dictionary to define those terms properly in their context.

@jayneonacobb I'd prefer to use the US Supreme Court decision. That is, after all, the Law of the Land.There ARE acceptable limits.allowed. As is usual, it's not all black & white.

@Dick_Martin the government has no right to infringe on a right expressed in the bill of rights. That includes the supreme court. The bill of rights governs the government, that is its purpose. The Heller ruling disagrees with you. That was a supreme court ruling.

@jayneonacobb ya know... you ought to read up on it. Its not what you seem to think it is. Otherwise folks would have machine guns, Claymores, canisters of mustard gas, bazookas, grenades, and drones with guns mounted to shoot deer, dogs, and "those" people. The Amendment was to allow roaming patrols of vigilantes to catch slaves, which by the way were legal at the time, too. It had nothing to do with Protecting America or preventing tyranny.

@Dick_Martin you clearly do not understand this topic.

@Dick_Martin Oh no not you again! Just joking you and I have said our piece and agree to disagree.

@MikeFlora I am curious as to what you and I disagree on? It seems we're pretty much in agreement. Lets get the guns. Lets calm down the sports shooters and find ways for them to enjoy their sport without fostering a culture of killing kids

They can interpret the bill of rights, but they can not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Arms is defined as all weapons and armaments. Therefore the supreme court can not pass any law which infringes on the peoples right to have weapons of any kind.

Also shooting techniques and training apply to all fire Arms if done correctly. I can hit a rabbit running at 50 yards with a pistol because I am well trained. I can do it easier with a rifle.

you may have misunderstood the point I am trying to make. it also appears that you really don’t understand the constitution or the purposes of our 3 branches of government.

Tell that to ISIS. I get your meaning though, I think. Any and every weapon is capable of taking a life. That is the purpose of a weapon.

and "holy water" will be ban in that water pistol.

Good luck with that.

You still don't understand what a right is, do you? Here's the second amendment. "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." The bill of rights exists to regulate the government, not the other way around. That's why it is a bill of rights, not a set of government created regulations. It was written by people who sought to found a government. It wasn't, and isn't an edict from a government.

"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." Does that look like it supports your plan?

Licence makes sense it works here in Australia

"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."

Where does it say privilage? I don't see it anywhere. Driving is a privilage, not a right.

@jayneonacobb the key to that phrase is the opening I think, are YOU in a Militia?

noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

ARE YOU, as a gun owner subject to INSTANT DRAFT for combat?

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is to ensure a well regulated Milita, we have a professional army.

NOR is my comparrison about rights VS privalages
It is about how we HANDLE Lethal Objects, ONE we insist on a slew of regulations, the other we bypass by convienient interpretations of a centuries old document, the authors of which in no way intended to cover weapons which they could not even imagine.

IF you are responsible enough to Drive, we consider you responsible enough to train, test, and insure your vehicle.
WHY would you seek to AVOID such tests? You think it is YOUR right to infringe on others right to life itself by not being competent, sane or proerly trained and insured?

Do you think a human interpretation of that Phrase is of more import than the lives of others?

@Davesnothere well, first of all, I am a member of a militia, the 3%ers. Would you like to see my militia issued patch? Secondly it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thirdly the other definition of militia is anyone capable of military service. Finally, a right is defined as inalienable and unabridgable, a privilage is not. Testable or not a right is a right. Also I am highly qualified to manufacture weapons. As welk as handel, operate and teach the safe operations of firearms. The federal government decided that I was responsible enough at age 18 to be accepted to the finest gunsmithing school the world has ever seen. I think you need to re-read the second amendment and use a dictionary to define the definitions contained there in, not your feelings about them. It is my right to keep and bear arms, it is not anyone's right to commit murder. You're conflating the issues.

@Davesnothere

The sins of the past do not land on my shoulders. No one is saying that kids shouldn't be kept safe. It's no one's right to commit murder. I find your feelings based arguments lacking any weight.

@jayneonacobb Do you have any arguments that you didn't copy and paste from someone else? You "free thinker", you.

@JimBen now you're just being obtuse. I have stayed many of my own arguments, as you are well aware. They are currently crushing your arguments because I have facts, not feelings to back mine.

@jayneonacobb "...the other definition of militia..."? Exactly how many definitions of "militia" are in the Second Amendment? Earlier you said the words were perfectly clear.

@JimBen there are two definitions of militia that are legally accepted which can apply to the general definition. These are they, according to Google definitions.

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

@jayneonacobb That's not what James Madison saw when he googled it.
This is why the Second Amendment is broken. We can't have something this important hinging on vague labels with multiple definitions that change over time.

@JimBen i use the definitions available to me through google. Those definitions are the same ones i researched in order to get my degree. Are you an expert on guns and gun laws? No. You have opinions. I have a degree which represents my knowledge and experties. Are you going to argue with your doctor about his diagnosis? I didn't think so. You're arguing from ignorance against one of the world's top experts on this subject. You can not win this debate. You lost a long time ago.

Very true. That's why the founding fathers wrote this: "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." Clear, defined terms.

You do need military grade arms to depose a tyrannical government. Which is the purpose of the second amendment. That is why militias are mentioned, and not deer or criminals.

@jayneonacobb
All that dramatic talk about overthrowing tyranny with your closet full of guns?
Please don't waste our time with that fantasy narrative.

If you think a bunch of overgrown manbabies are a match for a modern, disciplined, well-trained, equipped, and supplied fighting force then you truly are an amateur, regardless of how many physical attacks you've survived, how many pro-gun blogs you read, or how many "Militia" meetings you show up for.

You won't see the drone that hits you.

Our best bet is to maintain our status as a nation of laws, and control the military through accountable elected civilian leadership, like grownup countries around the world (who patterned their systems on ours, ironically) do.
That's what the Founding Fathers were talking about.

@JimBen how do you think guerilla warfare works? Are you aware that most of the military flat out refuses to attack US citizens according to a poll? Also do you think that there aren't possible backers in this case? The government will never be able to turn on the people in that way because we are so well armed. Even our enemies fear a ground assault on US soil because of the amount of guns and ammo out citizens have.

@jayneonacobb And you wanna live that life? Sounds like you're desperate to make it happen. Would you feel validated?

Let's get back to my original statement. Take a moment and reread it; a lot has happened since then.

Do you think it is possible to draw legally useful distinctions between "acceptably dangerous" and "unacceptably dangerous" firearms?

If not, what's your interest in this post? Are you commenting here because you like reading my well-crafted prose? Or are you trying to impress everybody with how much you know about guns, or how many times you can copy and paste the words of the Second Amendment and call that a cogent argument?

@jayneonacobb You are not going to win against the US military, This action takes voting with common sense. You think a bunch of ARs will stand off the national guard

@EMC2 you just don't get it. The second amendment was established in case the government decided to over step it's bounds. If ARs aren't going to "stand off the national guard" then the people need equivelent weapons. Your argument is litterally that we need better weapons than we have.

@JimBen im responding because your position is false.

@JimBen You are spot on my friend, Spot on, They have this rambo fantasy that what they do will really matter, OUR current constitution stops them from taking full control until the orange headed idiot took over

I live in Maine, we have bears. They usually avoid people, but every so often there is an attack. More often it's a mountain lion though. As far as your analogy goes, I see no where in the second amendment that specifies what arms are legal, only that arms are a right of the people to keep and bear.

You're Australian and that means you don't have the right to keep and bare arms. I, an American citizen, do have that right. Here's where it says so. "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 assumed most in the USA would be happy for reduced ownership of such seriously powerful weapons but after reading the comments and watching some of the videos I have to accept that the mindset it totally different. I am glad it is different here. But I also think in strange ways, imagine if the mindset from the USA existed in North Korea, it would be the end of those silly haircuts and that knob that enforces them. There have been quite a few examples around the world where the first act of subjugation is to have the populace surrender all of their weapons. Normally this is an invading force though.

That was also a time of unprecedented economic prosperity. I can't help but point out that point out that people are less likely to commit crimes when they aren't desperate. Maybe your corrolation is false. I've seen no evidence to support your position that arms are not a right of the people to keep and bear. I do see this though:

"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."

Insurance is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms as it requires people to purchase a product in order to exercise their rights. Im not required to own weapons, I have the right to though. See the difference?

@jayneonacobb Ummmm, cars? Exact parallel....no one has an implicit right to own something that can be deadly, but we as a society find them useful & desrable, so we enact laws to lessen the burden on those injured by their cress use/misuse, and attempt to more severely regulate the really dangerous users.

@AnneWimsey "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." That is the second amendment in the bill of rights. Rights can not be changed, that is what a right means as opposed to a privilage. Driving is a privilage, not a right. I see no amendment that supports your fallacious assumption that because it can cause death it is a privilage. Your argument is based on feelings, just like religion.

@jayneonacobb and if your right to drive drunk, or shoot at random, infringes upon my right to live a peaceful existence? You know, my "inalienable rights", which the 2nd Amendment is a small part of the document meant to ensure them.........
By all means, own all the muzzle loaders you wish,

@AnneWimsey I don't have the right to drive, let alone drunk. I don't have the right to fire randomly either. Where does it say "right to live a peaceful existence"? I see the right to life mentioned, but I don't see anything about a right to a peaceful existence. I do see the right to defend lives illustrates in the second amendment though. You're muzzle loader comment is just plain flippant. How am I going to ensure my rights with a muzzle loader against a tank? You made my argument for me. You also didn't address the insurance issue at all. Which means you're avoiding the subject. Could it be that you know I'm right and you don't want to admit it?

@jayneonacobb LOL! I'll bet real money you dress in camo 24/7 and proudly pay dues to the NRA, dead kids are not as important than your AK-47(s)......your "guns against tanks" remark reveals all I need to know about you.

@AnneWimsey how very mature of you. Thats sarcasm by the way.

Seeing as I am an expert on the subject that would make people like me qualified to legislate gun laws. Sounds good to me. I agree completely that experts should define legality. Most gun experts are against gun control.

@jayneonacobb I was married for over 30 years to an avid hunter, all we ate was game! He had Lots of guns, some inherited. I have NO problem with hunting or shooting as a sport, have known how to use a gun, (rifle & pistol)since age 9 on the farm. BUT we live in a society and a society has the duty and right to protect it's members, particularly the most vulnerable. TANKS are unlikely to be defeated by anything you can purchase....you are very, very foolish!

@AnneWimsey your argument is self defeating. It is also out of left field. If you actually read what I wrote you would know that you are "very, very foolish!" Go actually read what you just responded to.

@jayneonacobb Gee, i thought I was responding to your sarcasm....silly me!

@AnneWimsey I want being sarcastic. I think the experts should be the only people allowed to legislate laws in their field. Afterall, no one knows more about a topic than the experts.

@jayneonaco, Ummmm quote: "That's sarcasm, by the way"...you must have short term memory problems, too?

And that seems to be a problem for the nfl. I agree that basing laws on vague terms is a bad idea. Thankfully the second amendment is perfectly clear to anyone who understands how a dictionary works and has applied that knowledge to the bill of rights.

The only thing that's clear in regards to the 2nd Amendment is that we don't have that right as it is written.

@jayneonacobb If the Second Amendment is perfectly clear, then why do you need to paste it into every single comment? Something that's expressed perfectly clearly wouldn't require that.

@JimBen because some people don't seem to know what words mean, or that words even have actual definitions.

@jayneonacobb Laws have to accommodate everyone, including people with poor vocabularies.
So, what edition of Webster's dictionary were they using when they wrote the Second Amendment? I guess that's the one where we should look up the true meaning of "assault-style rifle".

My original statement is that we currently have a legal framework that depends on interpreting verbal labels, and that legal framework is not helping us.
The laws have to be expressed in terms of actual, measurable capabilities of the device.

@JimBen patently false! If the law had to be understood by everyone we would not need or have lawyers. You should go try to read a law some time. Then give that same law to an adult who reads at a fifth grade level. Webster based his definitions on pre-existing ones. The same ones used in 1776. His first dictionary was written in 1806. The definition of arms has never changed since well before 1776.

@jayneonacobb The arms available today are quite different than the ones they wrote the law for. I'm sure they'd word it differently with the knowledge of their evolution.

@mt49er just watch this. I just saw this for the first time about 3 minutes before I got the notification of your response. (I only mention that so I don't get accused of parroting.)

Statistically more people are killed using the .22 LR than any other single round in history. I know this because it is my job to know this.

OK, then, let's start by banning civilian use of fireams that have the engineering characteristics of the .22LR.

@JimBen you just don't understand the concept of a right. You choose, instead, to believe that your feelings should be law. That's how religion works, not facts and evidence. If you want your feelings to be law, go to Canada, they tend to base all their laws on feelings. That's not what a rational society does.

The "assault weapons" ban is what they are referring to. Seeing as assault is illegal and assault weapons don't exist until a weapon is used to assault someone, the law seems superfluous and poorly worded, thusly rendering it ineffectual by definition.

@jayneonacobb The Brady Bill/Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, as far as I could determine when I read it, does not have anything relative to automatic weapons and therefore the "Bump Stock" (and other devices like the crank attachment that could simulate autofire), could not be what he was referring to. I think he made an error.

@dahermit my point exactly. Thanks!

Is anybody really going to argue that bump stocks aren't designed as a workaround to modify a legal semi-auto to fire fully auto? Sure, I'll bet that the pipe you must be smoking out of was made for smoking legal tobacco only.

"Bump Stock Innovator Inspired by People Who ‘Love Full Auto’"
[nytimes.com]

@JimBen No, what I am going to argue is that some people are not bright enough to get the point. My point was that the "Bump Stock" was not a work-around for anything in the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act ("designed specifically to exploit vagueness in the 90s legislation." ) It was meant to get around the Gun Control Act of 1968 which make automatic weapons illegal (not the '90's Brady Act). I guess you are the one smoking something.

Driving is a privilage, not a right expressed in the bill of rights. Your analogy is wanting.

@jayneonacobb That right for guns follows the phrasing about a well-regulated militia. The vast majority of gun owners in the US are not in militias. Your critique is wanting.

@Unfoldingchaos those are separate issues. If the militia exists, it is the right of the people to keep and bare arms. The militia they were referring to was the British one that they deposed with a two year war for our independence waged by armed citizens. Penn and teller can explain that in this short video.

@jayneonacobb more word games.
I respect Penn and Teller for some of their ideas, but their Libertarian ideology has led them astray in the past. For example, their attachment to the CATO Institute, a Koch-brothers funded Libertarian think tank led them to deny climate change until they realized their ticket sales would suffer.

Your argument about "driving is a privilege but carrying guns is a right" is bogus.
If the Supreme Court said that a car is a type of armament, bam! instant Constitutional right to drive. Calling modern firearms the same thing as eighteenth-century muskets is about as stupid.

@JimBen no, because a vehicle is not defined as a weapon, though a vehicle can be used as one, just like any other object.

@jayneonacobb "Arms" means whatever the SCOTUS says it means. They could define it to be a car tomorrow if they voted that way.

@JimBen the supreme court is part of the government. It is the top of the judical branch. It is limited by the bill of rights. Their interpritation has to adhere to the previously established accepted definitions of words used during the time they were used in their original context. They do not define anything, they interpret definitions based on a strict set of guidelines. Which is why the Heller ruling disagrees with you.

"Arms is defined as all weapons and armaments."
Defined by whom?

@Arascain the bill of rights grants nothing, it expresses the rights of the people. @jimben The former head master of my academy, Daniel Webster. The dictionary defines things, among them is arms. Arms - weapons, armaments. So your feelings about this are baseless. Who do you think makes weapons? The government doesn't manufacture anything really. They modify things, but they don't manufacture them.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
THAT is how it is defined. It is disingenuous AS an armorer to say your unaware of this.

Are you at all familier with English (no offense meant)
You say . . ."
"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 see no mention of any of those limiting factors you proposed in this amendment. What I do see is the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

BUT you CANNOT do that, by the rules of English. YOU are editing the document by doing so, that "right" is CONTINGENT upon the prior line due to that comma, they are attached thoughts, not seperate ones. You need a period for that.

You also seem to think the core document is static, that it can never change when the Bill of Rights was forced by Shay's Rebellion, and every other amendment was also forced by a society FED UP with that aspect of our society and fixed on changing it for the good of all.

At that point that whole arguement starts to fall apart, because indiviual ownership of firearms is no longer any part of the direct Military protection of the USA. WE no longer Muster Minutemen from our streets into a force to fight the Redcoats. We have a standing armed force for that.

WHICH is why the Supreme court has restricted guns, how much and which ones has been a long running arguement.

I fail to grasp WHY it is ANY problem for firearms owners to simply BE RESPONSIBLE, sumbit to testing, competency, registration and insurance.

Like you want the Ability to owm lethal ordiinance, but refuse to be responsible about it, as a GROUP, somehow think it is your right to have NO rules. Everyone should just TRUST that all gun owners are good guys, with great eyesight, perfect nerves, who never have any mental health issues.

How is that resonable?

@Davesnothere yes, the militia is important in the bill of rights. But it is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms which is expressed in the second amendment. It is the right of the people to do so. It is a response to the need of a militia which makes it important for the people to keep and bear arms. That is called balance of power.

Insurance is ok for cars because driving is a privilage. It's is not ok for guns because guns are a right. Requiring anything to exercise any right besides abiding by the law is infringement. You can do all the mental acrobatics you want to make up reasons why you are right, but the truth is you are blaming the wrong thing based on your emotional response to the tragedies that should never have happened. Inanimate objects don't have agency. It requires a person to operate a fire arm with intent. Blame the person. When someone dies as a result of medical malpractice you blame the doctor, not the scalpel.

@Davesnothere no company makes an "assault rifle" model. They make firearms that were later falsely defined as "assault weapons." I know this because I am a gunsmith, and a damn good one, according to my peers. That means I understand the actual terms used I the industry that defines them.

@jayneonacobb Unless Daniel Webster's corpse is sitting on a bench in the Supreme Court (he'd probably be more chatty than Clarence Thomas), I don't care what word definitions you learned at your academy (they didn't, by any chance, teach spelling and grammar there, did they?).

Agnostic.com is about going beyond what they told us in school.
The word "arms" in the Second Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

So, your argument about "driving is a privilege but carrying guns is a right" is bogus.
If the Supreme Court said that a car is a type of armament, bam! instant Constitutional right to drive. Calling modern firearms the same thing as eighteenth-century muskets is about as stupid.

If, on the other hand, you favor an originalist interpretation, then clearly "arms" means a single-shot hand-made smooth-bore flintlocked muzzle loader. And we need to make new rules for the killing machines.

@JimBen well considering that Webster's is the gold standard of dictionaries in the US he does sort of have a seat on the supreme court. I'm not concerned with spelling and grammar on the internet. I'm not writing a dissertation, book or article. I'm engaging in a debate on the internet via my phone. (Amazing world we live in, huh?)

The framers understood that weapons technology advances. They had guns because of that, and they knew it. I live in the modern world where modern weapons exist. If they can pose a threat in any way, as they do in the wrong hands, then I need an equivelent response to that threat. That means being armed with modern weapons.

@jayneonacobb Unless Daniel Webster's corpse can settle a 4-4 split, he's not sitting on the bench today, which is the time period in which I live.

And you know what the framers of the Constitution understood, how? Did they come to you in a dream?

Sorry, but I'm not really concerned your response to threats. Sounds like you got that covered. At least until your "militia" self-deploys. After that, watch out for drones.

@jayneonacobb You choose to be willfully ignorant to protect your profit Motive drenched in the blood of innocents.

@JimBen because I am smart enough to look up the definitions of the words they used from sources of that time. I also read the federalist papers which explains what they meant in detail. You apparently, are not doing either of those things. His legacy is often used to define the terms used in language by the supreme court.

@Davesnothere I choose to side with the laws. You laying blame at my feet only shows how ill prepared you are for this debate. You're the willfully ignorant one here, I am litterally an expert on the subject of firearms. That is willfully educated.

@jayneonacobb I am laying Blame where the Blame rests Jayneonacobb.

1. IT was your LIFE CHOICE to make, market and sell Letal ordinance for profit.
2. You know full well the firearm was INVENTED as a weapon of war and repurposed for practice hobbies and other activities like hunting.
3. More restrictive laws restrict your Bottom line.

Hence you chose your Profit over the well being of your fellow citizens. YTOU could have been a Lawyer, a Doctor, a Gardener or a Garbadge man.
YOU CHOOSE to sell firearms to other people, and like Pilate, want to wash the blood off your hands.

You fail on ethical grounds alone, and want to use the Constituion to give you the ethical grounds to make your life choice moral and ethical.
It does not.

@Davesnothere I only sell weapons to military and police personnel, so... you're dead wrong. Also what someone does with an item after purchasing it is their choice. You really are just too emotionally unstable to have a legitament position on this topic.

I've been shot once and stabbed twice. My gun saved my life three times. It stopped four robberies and has never shot anyone or been used in a crime. None of my many guns have ever done anything other than what I or an authorized user made them do.

@jayneonacobb Congratulations for surviving whatever violence you have been victimized by in the past, and all your expertise in firearms.

You seem to be an extraordinary individual. I am happy for you that you have achieved such status.

But, dude, it's not all about you.

The laws have to be designed for ordinary individuals.

@JimBen thank you, I do appreciate your kind words. You're absolutely right, rights are for all people, not just me. I am an ordinary individual. I do not ascribe to elitism. I just happen to have a, if I can quote Taken, "specific set of skills." Just like everyone else. Diversity is what makes this world interesting and great.

The constitution regulates the government, not the other way around.

@jayneonacobb You're absolutely right. However, within that constraint the government is free to legislate, regulate and operate according to the will of the people.

@Dwight not if it violates a right. If the majority wanted to reestablish slavery who do you think would be right? The potential slave, or the potential owner?

@jayneonacobb slavery is no longer a right under the constitution. No need to adopt an extreme view. Government won't hurt you.

@Dwight I'm sorry, but what about understanding the terms used in the second amendment is extreme?

@jayneonacobb Your slavery example was unnecessary. You continuing insistence that government cannot regulate within the limits of the Constitution is extremist. The government already does so and can do more without violating the Constitution.

@Dwight I don't agree with you because, facts. You have none of those. I have many. That makes my position rational, and yours irrational and extreme.

@jayneonacobb you win. Collect your prize at the door.

@Dwight i already have my prize, it's freedom. Taste it, it's delicious.

The problem is people's emotions. They get angry and lash out. That's not a problem with guns, it's a problem with how people are raised and their mental health.

@jayneonacobb When a 19 year old can do that much damage in 6 minutes, That is a gun problem.

@CapriKious no, that is a problem with mental health. The inanimate objects he employed in his rampage has no agency.

A sociopath is a person who is clinically defined as not having the capacity to empathize with other human beings. It can not be used to describe anything other than a person. "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." Tell me what about that sentence personifies it?

@jayneonacobb Proving my point again. We're not going to get the necessary clarity by struggling to understand what the two hundred year old words meant.
Eventually, the vernacular in the Constitution will be as hard for modern people to clearly understand as Shakespearean dialog.

@JimBen I understand Shakespeare just fine. Maybe you need a better education. Strike the maybe.

@jayneonacobb Good for you.
And how unusual is that, to actually understand the Elizabethan slang that Shakespeare used? Ask the next 10 people you see what "...get thee to a nunnery..." actually means.

@JimBen Will do and accurately report on that data. I'm pretty sure everyone at this party I'm going to in an hour or so is well versed in Shakespeare. I get your point though. That just means people are poorly educated. With the proper education comes proper understanding. I hope that the people governing us are properly educated.