Researchers find mass killings, school shootings are contagious

July 2, 2015, Arizona State University
school
Larkmead School. Credit: CC-BY-SA-2.5,2.0,1.0

Mass killings and school shootings in the U.S. appear to be contagious, according to a team of scientists from Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University.

Study author Sherry Towers, research professor in the ASU Simon A. Levin Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Sciences Center, explained, "The hallmark of contagion is observing patterns of many events that are bunched in time, rather than occurring randomly in time."

Her team examined databases on past high-profile mass killings and school shootings in the U.S. and fit a contagion model to the data to determine if these tragedies inspired similar events in the near future.

They determined that mass killings - events with four or more deaths - and school shootings create a period of contagion that lasts an average of 13 days. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of such tragedies appear to arise from .

Their paper, "Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings," appears in the July 2 edition of PLOS ONE.

The analysis was inspired by actual events in Towers' life.

"In January of 2014 I was due to have a meeting with a group of researchers at Purdue University," she said. "That morning there was a tragic campus shooting and stabbing incident that left one student dead. I realized that there had been three other school shootings in the news in the week prior, and I wondered if it was just a statistical fluke, or if somehow through news media those events were sometimes planting unconscious ideation in vulnerable people for a short time after each event."

The researchers noted that previous studies have shown that suicide in youths can be contagious, where one suicide in a school appears to spark the idea in other vulnerable youths to do the same.

"It occurred to us that mass killings and school shootings that attract attention in the national news media can potentially do the same thing, but at a larger scale," Towers said. "While we can never determine which particular shootings were inspired by unconscious ideation, this analysis helps us understand aspects of the complex dynamics that can underlie these events."

On average, involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the U.S., and occur on average monthly. The team found that the incidence of these tragedies is significantly higher in states with a high prevalence of firearm ownership.

Explore further: Researchers link Ebola news coverage to public panic using Google, Twitter data

Related Stories

Mass murder, mental illness, and men

May 11, 2015

Mass murders in the United States are rare, but they receive a lot of media attention and are the focus of an ongoing controversy regarding the link between mass murder and mental illness among the perpetrators of these heinous ...

Recommended for you

Light-based production of drug-discovery molecules

February 18, 2019

Photoelectrochemical (PEC) cells are widely studied for the conversion of solar energy into chemical fuels. They use photocathodes and photoanodes to "split" water into hydrogen and oxygen respectively. PEC cells can work ...

286 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

IanC1811
5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2015
The rest of the world is already bewildered.
Squirrel
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2015
The rest of the world calls them Second Amendment murders and suicides. Open access article here http://journals.p....0117259
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2015
There is another phenomena not considered in the paper.

The first achievement of a goal is the hardest, whether it is climbing a particular mountain, breaking a record time or solving a math problem. After that first breaking of the ice the problem seems solvable, achievable and possible. It seems to be so much easier as if being first presents an imaginary barrier or additional hurdle that needs to be overcome.

Humans, as collective or herd animals, find it far easier to follow than to lead.

The fact that we make so much fuss over the first to achieve something, even if it is achieved by numerous other people subsequently, shows that this notion is deeply ingrained in the human psyche.

Given the more local world view of the adolescent, events in the distant past appear to them to be remote but recent or local events bring them into their world as ice breakers, making it so much easier to follow along behind. This makes is easier for those already contemplating rampages.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2015
The team found that the incidence of these tragedies is significantly higher in states with a high prevalence of firearm ownership.

No? Really? And I thought that if everyone has a gun everyone is safe. Isn't that the current slogan of the pro gun lobby?

Well, needs more guns, I guess.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2015
The problem is not in guns but in the lack of moral standard of people who do crimes.

Don't you think there is a tiiiiny connection between telling people to have as many implements to hand that are designed for the single purpose of snuffing out human life and the propensity of such an act happening?

Also don't you find it a tiiiny bit contradictory to preach "don't kill" and then shower people with killing implements?

Moral standards are all nice and fuzzy - but everyone has a bad day once or twice in their lives (or develops a mental disorder - which has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have high moral standards or not).
And then it's a good idea that they don't have a gun in easy reach.

You can not solve one problem if you fight with its consequence.

Typical black/white thinking (read: stupid thinking). To solve such an issue you have to attack it at ALL fronts. Parenting, education, counselling, availability of guns, .-..
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
Media coverage of shootings OBVIOUSLY helps causes future shootings. It doesn't matter. Our economy is based on one principle, profits. Journalism adds another principle, freedom of the press. Combine the 2 and you have a media that knows their coverage causes more of these things to happen but they will never stop covering it because it's profitable.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Why do mass shootings occur in 'gun free' zones?

Define 'mass'.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
""The federal judge on the case ruled it was apparent that this suit was filed to pursue the Brady Center's 'political purposes' and was used as an 'opportunity to propagandize the public,'""
http://freebeacon...lawsuit/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
""Since they support licensing for exercising Second Amendment freedoms, do they also support licensing of newspaper columns, political speeches and sermons?" asked Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America."
""Driving a car and fishing are not constitutionally-protected rights," Baker responded. "The Second Amendment protects our individual right to own a gun."

"One does not need the permission of the government in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right," added Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation."
http://thehill.co...licenses
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
"When a mass murder occurs, it receives instant and pervasive news coverage. Unfortunately, we are prone to overestimate the frequency of an event by its prominence in our minds, and mass murder is no exception. This is a very rare phenomenon and is neither increasing nor decreasing in the US. - See more at: http://blog.oup.c...Oj.dpuf"]http://blog.oup.c...Oj.dpuf"[/url]
"The most lethal school mass murder in US history was in Bath, Michigan, in 1927, a bombing that resulted in 45 deaths, mostly children in the second to sixth grades. - See more at: http://blog.oup.c...Oj.dpuf"]http://blog.oup.c...Oj.dpuf"[/url]
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
"A Bronx jury convicted a 37-year-old Cuban refugee yesterday of causing one of the worst mass murders in United States history, a fire that killed 87 people in the Happy Land social club in the Bronx. "
http://www.nytime...ire.html
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
but having a body guard who carries a killing machine - implies you are a bad person.


It shows the hypocrisy of those those who want to disarm citizens while allowing the politicians to have armed guards.

Bernie is from VT. A state with NO extra gun laws and all citizens can carry a concealed weapon.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
The dream of every tyrant and dictator who are vain cowards by nature with usually revanchist moods to normal people is to make citizens defenseless.

That's why you make sure not to have a tyranny
By having a democracy, an independent police force that is not neholden to politics but to the law, an indepenendt justice system, and an independent press (But I guess those are things that the US never had...so no wonder you don't know how that works)

Yes, there must be checks an balances against abuse. But a unorganized individual toting a couple of pea shooters? Seriously? You think THAT will stand against a dictatorial regime? You're more naive than I thought (and that is quite an achievement given your posts to date)
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
You think THAT will stand against a dictatorial regime?


Why are dictators so afraid?

"In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for "public safety."
"The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews."

Read more at: http://www.nation...halbrook
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
These killings are just a symptom of the massive problems that exist in our society. The mental health of our children seems to be plummeting. I would not be in the least bit surprised if it were linked to the prescription drugs the schools are insisting our children take. Many of these are linked to higher suicide rates in teens. Also they are exposed entertainment that is much more violent than in the past. That coupled with a lack of any religious beliefs and no real guidance from parents who are too busy working 12 hours a day and you have a recipe for disaster.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Australia has not had a mass shooting since they banned guns (almost 20 years)

But, but, but...it has had a tyrannical takeover...oh, wait, no...it hasn't. Carry on.

The U.S. is way more religious than Australia

Religion breeds violence - when it comes up against another religion. Two groups hwo will die to uphold mutually contradictory ideals? I don't see hw that can NOT lead to violence.

But kids aren't particularly religious and religion doesn't seem to play a role in school shooting sone way or another. It is a social problem and by that I mean the values of society (as well as how that influences how parents treat their kids).
If kids feel they have no future other than as wage slaves or as cannon fodder - well, then I can understand that some rebel against that forcibly.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
" Given that data MR - how do you justify your comment about the need for more religion?"

I am not a person who practices religion but I value the religious training I received as a child. It did give me a heightened sense of right and wrong and respect for the rights of others. Although you might not agree, the 10 commandments do form a valuable basis for society if they were ever followed. Children are not a crop that grows on it's own, they need lots of guidance and the state is not the most ideal source of this guidance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
Religion breeds violence


Depends upon the religion.

Christians in Charleston, SC are not violent after a church massacre.
How violent are Christians acting around the world while Muslims are singling them out for violent execution?
How violent were the Jews when the Germans rounded them up for extermination?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
"If kids feel they have no future other than as wage slaves or as cannon fodder - well, then I can understand that some rebel against that forcibly."

Anti I think that the problem is a lot more basic than that. Look at TV and video games. Killing is the norm. Adam Lanza was just going for "High Score" at Newtown. Look at the banking system, trillions stolen and no one even prosecuted. Look at the US government. It's long term debts when you include SS and other entitlements is in the 100s of Trillions of dollars. This is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to pay.

We are a rudderless society with no real ethics or morals. Ghetto kids join gangs because they have no real expectations to live past 21 so their actions have no long term consequences.

These are all signs of a decaying society.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
Look at how the state and local governments plan to balance their budgets, taxing drugs and legalized gambling. I like going to a casino as much as the next guy but gambling is a parasitic business and does nothing to improve the general well being of a society.

These are all signs of a decaying society.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
Anti I think that the problem is a lot more basic than that. Look at TV and video games. Killing is the norm.

US TV and videogames are globally seen (TV series are syndicated to many countries). However, this does not affect people there to any degree. I think kids are well able to distinguish between reality and make-believe products.

The injustice prevalent in the wage-slave system is what I was getting at. If people are ttold they can be anything but at some point (during their teen years) find out that that's just a lie - but they have already been shoehorned into the system from which there is no escape... then I guess that is much worse than being in some dictatorship/monarchy that just tells you from the word go that you are just a subject.
The outcome is the same - the latter is just more honest about it.

We are a rudderless society with no real ethics or morals.

There's plenty of ethics or morals...just not sane ones
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
Onions to tell you the truth I do not know enough about Australian society to comment on their crime situation. I do remember the US in the 50s 60s and 70s though. We did not have gun problems then and they were even more common that today. We have a societal problem not a gun problem. Our government has taken the will and necessity to work away from huge segments of the population. They think they are poor while driving in their car, wearing $100 sneakers and watching cable TV on 60" HD screens in their air conditioned apartments. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT POOR IS!

The ghetto culture is venerated and anyone who tries to escape it is looked down upon as not ethnic enough.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
The newest form of government sponsored depravity is casino gambling online. Now you can sit at home and lose you welfare check with out the bother of actually going outside to buy a lottery ticket. Well one thing is good, for those who care about it, think of the millions of tons of Co2 emissions that will be saved. This is the greenest form of gambling yet invented.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2015
"Gambling is indeed a serious societal problem. I have never been inside a casino - and you admit to "like going to a casino as much as the next guy" Perhaps part of the problem is being totally hypocritical about what we say, vs what we do"

Yea Onions, I like an occasional drink to. Perhaps Meals on Wheels should include a quart of vodka with each supper.

The point is, I can afford to go to a casino a few times a year. It is entertainment like going to a restaurant or concert. Now if you take someone who is even mildly addicted to gambling and and allow him to do it from home on a state endorsed website you are creating a costly social problem.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2015
" The solution will be a complex reset of the society - turning away from a society built on the almighty dollar - and towards a society that values education, science, knowledge, and deeper values like health, and learning to live sustainably on our planet."

Yea Onions that sound like a concrete plan that is not based on fantasy at all.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
I will admit that my comments about the poor were stereotypical. But you have to admit that "Poor" in the US is nothing like being poor in Latin America. As far as being a hypocrite goes there is nothing wrong or right about gambling or drinking until it begins to effect your or your family's well being. Thus, I think my condemnation of state sponsored internet gambling and the state's acceptance of the over proliferation of new casinos for tax revenue purposes is counter productive. The overall costs to society will far outweigh the revenue benefits.

While we are at it let's discuss legalizing drugs. The costs, social and monetary, of trying to stop drug use in the nation have been immense. Does that mean that we should legalize all drugs and effectively write off x% of the population. We all know legalizing drugs will not stop the illegal drug trade since the government will tax it until the illegal trade will become profitable again like smoking.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
"Thus, I think my condemnation of state sponsored internet gambling and the state's acceptance of the over proliferation of new casinos for tax revenue purposes is counter productive. "

Oops, that is not exactly what I wanted to say. My condemnation is correct its the state proliferation that is counter productive.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
" If you read books that look at people who have broken out of the poverty trap - they talk pretty consistently about having someone in your life who believes in you, and teaches you that it is possible."

You are 1001% correct Mr. Onions. Now what do you think happens when people like Al Sharpton make a living by saing that you cannot succeed because the deck is stacked against you?

BTW Kudos to your children, good Job!!!
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2015
"it seems prudent to me to take guns out of the society - as the data clearly shows that it certainly does not hurt to ban guns"

Well if you were a Jew in WW2 Germany you might have a slightly different opinion.
MR166
not rated yet Jul 04, 2015
"You want concrete? If king, - I would pull the plug on our military industrial complex - and all that money would be turned into high tech education programs - focused on areas such as biotech, clean energy, etc. Welfare and food stamps would be reformed into work and education programs. Schools would be privatized. Every one would be guaranteed access. Competition would be introduced into medicine."

Strange I consider myself to be a staunch conservative and yet much of our goals are the same. I love the bit about privatizing schools and the military/industrial complex has much too much influence. I could even go with all education as an entitlement just as long as the liberal progressive stranglehold on the educational system is eliminated.

Also, contrary to what you might think of my posts, I am in favor of renewable energy!!! BUT, I am not willing to kill an entire economy to implement technologies that are not quite ripe yet.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
"https://ethicsins...ty-trap"

Loved it!!!!!!

Part of the poverty trap is due to poor decisions and the false information provided by your surroundings. If you want to succeed hang out with successful people.

I know in the past I might have said that you are a Socialist but you might be a Closet Conservative and not even realize it. I am pretty sure that my parents were die hard Democrats but they did teach me to question the government and my teachers.

There is no advice more valuable than that today except question what you read and hear in the media.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
"So that rational is supposed to carry over to a modern democratic society. "

YES for God's sake YES!!!!! If you think that government today is any different or less dangerous than government then you need to read and believe a little more history. Mankind has not progressed as much as you may have hoped.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2015
Our news media bestows a place in the memory of everyone on those who randomly murder and destroy. The disaffected and frustrated who see no way to make a difference in their own life, much less the world in general, see violence as a way, dammit, to make a difference.

The socialist welfare state breeds massive discontent and our media feeds it.

This article, however, is not about the causes of violence in our society. It is another socialist plea to seize everyone's guns.

The team found that the incidence of these tragedies is significantly higher in states with a high prevalence of firearm ownership.


That is not even true, but it promotes the agenda of seizing guns.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
It's strange that guns were never a problem in the US before LBJ and the welfare based "Great Society". After that everything went down hill fast to the point that everyone needs to be controlled by the government in order to insure safety.
24volts
not rated yet Jul 04, 2015
"If kids feel they have no future other than as wage slaves or as cannon fodder - well, then I can understand that some rebel against that forcibly."

Anti I think that the problem is a lot more basic than that. Look at TV and video games. Killing is the norm. Adam Lanza was just going for "High Score" at Newtown. Look at the banking system, trillions stolen and no one even prosecuted. Look at the US government. It's long term debts when you include SS and other entitlements is in the 100s of Trillions of dollars. This is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to pay.

We are a rudderless society with no real ethics or morals. Ghetto kids join gangs because they have no real expectations to live past 21 so their actions have no long term consequences.

These are all signs of a decaying society.

SS is not an entitlement... you pay it every paycheck. Otherwise I more or less agree with you.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2015
"SS is not an entitlement... you pay it every paycheck. Otherwise I more or less agree with you."

Ok I'll go with that but it still is one huge obligation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
"SS is not an entitlement... you pay it every paycheck. Otherwise I more or less agree with you."

Ok I'll go with that but it still is one huge obligation.


SS has been expanded into areas not intended or funded by contributions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
It's strange that guns were never a problem in the US before LBJ and the welfare based "Great Society". After that everything went down hill fast to the point that everyone needs to be controlled by the government in order to insure safety.


Just watched the 2nd Captain America and the mission of Hydra was to create conflict and disorder so people would beg for their tyranny.
Not too far fetched as we see how the Obama regime follows Rules for Radicals (or Hydra?).
Manfred Particleboard
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Ok... 2nd ammendment gives you the right to bear arms. Ok fine! Uphold your constitional rights, at least you have something that clear cut. Australia certainly doesn't. What about the constitutional right to bear ammunition?
Doesn't say anything about ammunition in the constitution, just bearing arms. Make ammunition restricted and highly expensive and see how many mass shooting happen. You keep your NRA fanatics happy with their constitutional rights not being infringed upon, and you get to keep your kids bullet hole free. Whaddya say?
ThomasQuinn
1.6 / 5 (24) Jul 05, 2015
"it seems prudent to me to take guns out of the society - as the data clearly shows that it certainly does not hurt to ban guns"

Well if you were a Jew in WW2 Germany you might have a slightly different opinion.


Guns would not have helped them. To think that a persecuted minority would be ok if only they were armed is a fallacy so great that I find it distasteful to the extreme. You probably don't mean it like that, but your words imply that the Jews themselves are to blame for the mass-murder committed on them, because they allowed themselves to be disarmed. Unlimited access to weapons would undoubtedly have resulted in even MORE terrorist murders than already occurred between 1918 and the nazi takeover.

It's a matter of simple logic, nothing more: violent extremists always exist. Violent extremists are much more dangerous if they have more or easier access to weapons.

Look at the US after the Civil War - lots of guns, lots of traumatized people, lots of violence.
ThomasQuinn
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2015
If you think that government today is any different or less dangerous than government then you need to read and believe a little more history. Mankind has not progressed as much as you may have hoped.


I would prefer if amateurs like yourself refrained from appropriating the right to speak with authority on the subject of history. You are clearly not a historian, and it really shows. We, historians, do not make such sweeping generalizations because they are IN NO WAY factually accurate and do not do history justice. Government today is VERY different from government in the past.

Of course the government today is much less dangerous than, say, in the year 1600. Back then, most governments could have you locked up or killed without trial. If you did get a trial, there were no safeguards to ensure it was fair. State-sanctioned mass murder was common (wars of religion). Statistics show that society was far more violent, with murder rates dozens of times higher than now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
It is not OK to just make assertions - and to provide no support.

You do.

government today is much less dangerous than, say, in the year 1600.

Based on what?
State-sanctioned mass murder was common

Not has common as is was in the 20th century in USSR, Germany, China, Korea....

Statistics show that society was far more violent,

Society is not state.
Guns would not have helped them.


" they were able to acquire guns. The Bielski partisans later supplemented these arms with captured German weapons, Soviet weapons, and equipment supplied by Soviet partisans. "
" Under the protection of the Bielski group, more than 1,200 Jews survived the war,"
http://www.ushmm....10007563
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
Onions you must be really desperate to make a point. That last post was really weak. The link was just plain silly. A handful of killings over many years does not prove that guns are the problem. Today is much much different since we have created a segment of society that couldn't care less about human life. This sickness will not be cured by passing a law that only the healthy segment will obey.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
"There should be little doubt that while pre-twentieth century war has been of the greatest historical interest and drama, governments have killed many times more people in cold-blood than they have in the heat of battle. "
https://www.hawai...HAP3.HTM
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2015
government today is much less dangerous than, say, in the year 1600.

Based on what?


I gave a number of examples. If you can't read that's your problem.

State-sanctioned mass murder was common

Not has common as is was in the 20th century in USSR, Germany, China, Korea....


As much as 30% of the entire population of what is today Southern Germany was exterminated between 1618 and 1648 in state-run religious 'cleansing'.

Guns would not have helped them.


" they were able to acquire guns. The Bielski partisans later supplemented these arms with captured German weapons, Soviet weapons, and equipment supplied by Soviet partisans. "
" Under the protection of the Bielski group, more than 1,200 Jews survived the war,"


And the nazis would have had masses of guns in the early '20s. As would the communists. As would all kinds of other, lesser-known violent extremist groups.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
Ren82 the founding fathers made that exact point. Removing God from our countries daily life has been one of the prime goals of those who wish to destroy our country.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
30% of the entire population of what is today Southern Germany was exterminated between 1618 and 1648 in state-run religious 'cleansing'.


And 6+million were murdered by the German govt in the 20th century.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
If you people like Australia's policy of removing all guns so much, what is stopping you from moving there?

Australian immigration laws.
ThomasQuinn
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 05, 2015
If you people like Australia's policy of removing all guns so much, what is stopping you from moving there?


If you think there's something that needs fixing, don't fix it, get the hell out? This kind of knee-jerk jingoism has marked reactionaries-without-answers since at least the 19th century!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
If you think there's something that needs fixing,


If you think 'it' needs 'fixing', follow the law to 'fix' 'it'.
If you won't follow the law, leave or go to jail.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2015
Why do we allow those who need guns to be equal to the rest of us, to actually have them?

They are exactly the folk who should not have them.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2015
"And 6+million were murdered by the German govt in the 20th century."
---------------------------------------

The hands on the machine guns, the hands on the cans of Zyklon, the hands signing death warrants were Christian.

Like the hands which held the torches which burned folk alive in the Inquisitions, . . for their own good.
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
The problem is less about guns than the ability of just about everyone, from suicidal teenagers to gangstas to certifiable lunatics to get one relatively easily in the USA. Other developed nations with high rates of gun ownership do not tend to suffer these problems on such a scale because gun ownership is not a "Right", and you have to at least give some indication you are not a nut before being allowed one.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Why do we allow those who need guns to be equal to the rest of us, to actually have them?

Sounds like you would like to disarm police, G...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
"And 6+million were murdered by the German govt in the 20th century."


What about the 20 some million taken out by Stalin?

The hands on the machine guns, the hands on the cans of Zyklon, the hands signing death warrants were Christian.

Whether by choice or coercion, they were Nazi's first.

Like the hands which held the torches which burned folk alive in the Inquisitions, . . for their own good.

Those torched were merely an example to the rest - "Our rules or you die."
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
"The problem is less about guns than the ability of just about everyone, from suicidal teenagers to gangstas to certifiable lunatics to get one relatively easily in the USA. Other developed nations with high rates of gun ownership do not tend to suffer these problems on such a scale because gun ownership is not a "Right", and you have to at least give some indication you are not a nut before being allowed one."

Dirk I would venture to guess that 90% of the gun crimes are carried out by felons or teenage gang members all of whom obtained guns in violation of existing laws. Thus more laws are not the answer. How about demanding that the government change the type of society that it is creating. As I said in another post, the problem was not nearly as great 50 years ago and guns were more available than they are today.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2015
" As I said in another post, the problem was not nearly as great 50 years ago and guns were more available than they are today."
-------------------------------------------

As you erred before, . . .

No, now we have as many or more guns in the US than people. Interestingly, gun ownership has not spread, it is that the gun nuts each have several, not secure with only one killing device.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
the problem was not nearly as great 50 years ago


As recently as 30 years ago, I could drive to school with a shotgun or rifle in the truck to hunt pheasants or gophers on the way home.
The real problem is 'liberals' who blamed firearms and not people.
Children get in trouble in schools for using a finger and thumb as a gun.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2015
"As recently as 30 years ago, I could drive to school with a shotgun or rifle in the truck to hunt pheasants or gophers on the way home."
---------------------------------------------------

There are homes there now, Toots. Times change.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2015
If you think there's something that needs fixing,


If you think 'it' needs 'fixing', follow the law to 'fix' 'it'.
If you won't follow the law, leave or go to jail.


Wanting to reform the law is a crime now? You need to get your head examined.
ThomasQuinn
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 06, 2015
the problem was not nearly as great 50 years ago


As recently as 30 years ago, I could drive to school with a shotgun or rifle in the truck to hunt pheasants or gophers on the way home.


Very, very few people in the civilized world would consider that a positive thing. The fact that you can't do such an insane thing anymore counts as a victory of civilization over barbarism. You don't carry a gun to school, period. People shouldn't carry guns to begin with, but teenagers certainly shouldn't. They can't drink alcohol because we agree that they cannot handle it responsibly yet, then why should they be ok with guns?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
TQ don't judge yesterdays society by today's norms. That was Ryggs and my point. Today's society had declined to the point that is is not considered "Safe" to even leave a child alone until who knows what age 18 perhaps. Why don't you address the causes of societal decline instead of the symptoms.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
That's simply engaging in moral relativism, not juding the past by its own standards. " Today's society had declined to the point that is is not considered "Safe" to even leave a child alone until who knows what age 18 perhaps" is not a factual observation, it's a value-laden subjective judgement. It is equally, even more, valid to argue that we have become more responsible in our attitude towards violence. You might be one of those who don't like to accept it, but the FACTS are that violence is on the decline, and 30 years ago, society was much more violent. The changing attitude on weapons has contributed to that decline.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
What utter BS. On a bad weekend in Chicago there is the equivalent to one Newtown on a regular basis. But that is just considered the ghetto people taking care of business. The St. Valentine's Day massacre is infamous in history but just a normal Detroit or LA weekend now.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
he FACTS are that violence is on the decline


...while firearm ownership is increasing.

Yes, the attitude is changing, more armed citizens => less crime.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
No, Ryggy, the numbers of gun nuts has not increased, it is the number of guns each SCARED person has which has ballooned.

What is it with those of you who need to kill? Does it give you a feeling of power to kill? Do you get a thrill? Hunters are just thrill-killers, braving the Wild Quail armed only with an automatic shotgun, . . real men.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
he FACTS are that violence is on the decline


...while firearm ownership is increasing.

Yes, the attitude is changing, more armed citizens => less crime.


The fact that violence in general is decreasing does not prove that "more armed citizens => less crime". For one, the decrease of violence in the U.S. is lagging in comparison to other western nations. Furthermore, while the number of acts of violence has decreased, the number of firearms-related violence as a subset of all violent acts has increased over the course of the past century, and again in a much more pronounced fashion than for other western countries. The statistical comparison with other countries suggests the amount of violence is decreasing in spite of widespread firearms ownership, not because of it.

People only need guns to defend themselves because people can have guns.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
Is violence on the decline?
" Black Youths Mock and Laugh at Unconscious and Bloody Victim After July 4th Beatdown "

"http://www.thegat...n-video/

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
People only need guns to defend themselves because people can have guns.


People also have knives, fists, clubs, ....while a 100 lb woman has a .380. and the woman with the .380 will likely not be raped or beaten or killed if she uses her gun.

Note the rising rape rate in Sweden, http://www.nation...ape-rate
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
Of course your assertion that violence is on the decline is difficult for you or anyone to quantify.
Those who keep crime stats use different definitions.

I would include as violence the attack on bakers in OR for refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2015
This is a correlation anyone who keeps track of the news could make .It's good to have it verified, though. Perhaps we need to demand the media change how it covers events like this. Malcontents see another malcontent get the attention they desperately want so they copy the act.

For anyone interested in an unbiased discussion of gun statistics...
http://www.factch...n-facts/

Gun opponents will find it impossible to correlate an increase in guns with an increase in gun-related crimes. Ownership is up, crime is down. Nor will gun proponents be able to find a direct correlation between gun ownership and a decrease in crime. It's just not as simple as people want it to be.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
NYT: Violence works!

"NYT: Christians' Failure to Match Muslims' 'Level of Outrage' Allows Us to Publish Pope-Condom Images"
http://www.breitb...-images/

So if Christians attacked the NYT, they would stop being being disrespectful to Christians?

Nor will gun proponents be able to find a direct correlation between gun ownership and a decrease in crime.


But when someone is being attacking and needs a gun to defend themselves and their families, that data point collapses to 1.
If all lives matter, and the police are NOT required to protect your life, then each individual is responsible to defend themselves and their families.
"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
"I would include as violence the attack on bakers in OR for refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals."

I thought that was an art form. Are we now going to tell artists who their clients have to be. Suppose that Donald Trump wanted to use a Barbra Streisand song as his campaign theme. Does she have to sell him the rights?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
If I, a white male walk, into any establishment they have the legal right not to serve me for any reason. Why should homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders be a protected class? In reality so many people are in the protected class now that white males are in the minority and as such should be in the protected class also.
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
If I, a white male walk, into any establishment they have the legal right not to serve me for any reason. Why should homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders be a protected class? In reality so many people are in the protected class now that white males are in the minority and as such should be in the protected class also.


Interpretations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would actually prohibit the above.

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


http://www.justic...tle2.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
actually prohibit the above.


If it's enforced.

It's only enforced for certain favored classes.

No Muslim bakery was prosecuted for refusing to decorate a homosexual wedding cake.

http://www.washin...page=all
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (23) Jul 06, 2015
Ok... 2nd ammendment gives you the right to bear arms. Ok fine! Uphold your constitional rights, at least you have something that clear cut. Australia certainly doesn't. What about the constitutional right to bear ammunition?
Doesn't say anything about ammunition in the constitution, just bearing arms. Make ammunition restricted and highly expensive and see how many mass shooting happen. You keep your NRA fanatics happy with their constitutional rights not being infringed upon, and you get to keep your kids bullet hole free. Whaddya say?
I say youre a retard who doesnt know how to think for himself.

Ammo is easier to smuggle than firearms. Certainly easier than illegal aliens. And its easy to make.

But the 2nd amendment specifically allows for guns used for defense. This only works with LOADED guns. They arent really designed to be used as clubs you know?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2015
You don't carry a gun to school, period
Many people do, and are allowed by law to do so, because they know that a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

We protect our legislators, our art, our wild animals, and our money with guns. What makes you think that our children arent more valuable than these?
People shouldn't carry guns to begin with, but teenagers certainly shouldn't
Carry permits arent issued to people under 18.

"DETROIT, Mich. (WXYZ) - Three different homeowners in Detroit used guns to defend themselves against intruders this week.

Two suspects were shot and killed.

"I think it's just a matter of the individual homeowners protecting themselves and finally catching up with the criminals in that enough is enough and they aren't going to take it anymore," said Detroit Police Deputy Chief Rodney Johnson."

-These stories happen ALL the time. They are COMMON. You never read about them because they dont make it beyond the local news.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
If you want to see just how much our society has decayed just look at the popular TV shows from the 50s 60s and 70s. Compare them with today's shows. If you can't see the problem you might be part of it.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
You can get sleaze and self-righteous violence on Fox, where they glorify torture.
Manfred Particleboard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
Come now, the derogatory name calling we can leave to the real retards.
I will give credit where credit is due, Chris Rock was the inspiration for the comment, but really, the idea is not as stupid as is sounds. For a start, an armed populace was for defense against the British or French empires, I don't see the original intent being of any modern relevance.
And have you ever tried making working ammunition from scratch, and I don't mean going and using a store bought reloading equipment? It's not easy. Yes you can smuggle some in , but the net effect will be far less availability to the population and the result will be far less murders overall? It's food for thought, not a literal manifesto for a solution, as if 1000 characters was ever going to produce a final solution to a problem as big as this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2015
n armed populace was for defense against the British or French empires,


And to hunt for food and defend from wild animals, Indians and outlaws.

And have you ever tried making working ammunition from scratch,


Have you tried making heroin or methamphetamine from scratch? They illegal so how will banning lead and gun powder work?
And you will have to ban ALL firearms, including the police and military.
Explosives can be made from common household chemicals. Will you ban those?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2015
"And you will have to ban ALL firearms, including the police and military"
-----------------------------------
No, we don't.

I left my M-16 with the Air Force, and have no need for it, . . either real or psychological.

I outgrew guns.

How about you?
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
Stolen Valor and false real-life strikes again. Mwh and Kwh detail fail is the latest self-exposure.

Over 100 posts here, and at a glance, only one person stands up for mental health and societal norm breakdown being the root cause of mass violence. MR166.

That person was accused of racism, and who knows what else.

In the end, those attacking care for the mentally ill, or for family values care not for a solution to mass violence. Helping those that need help does not foster a dependent class. Attacking guns eliminates the independent class.

btw, spoons made gkam fat.

Failure of mental health awareness, and breakdown of basic family values (respect for authority, self-respect) are the root causes of mass violence.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
You two do sound a lot alike.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jul 07, 2015
We do not blame the guns, we blame the nuts who have and "need" them. Yeah, we could all own 10 guns if we were stupid, but we don't.

But we have to keep them away from the kooks. If that means using a broad brush, sorry.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2015
I can own 10 guns if I wanted to, doesn't mean I am off to find a nice church to shoot up.

Are you proof against mental issues (medical and psychological) - now and in the future? If so: please call your local medical association. They'd certainly want to know how you do that.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2015
the problem was not nearly as great 50 years ago


As recently as 30 years ago, I could drive to school with a shotgun or rifle in the truck to hunt pheasants or gophers on the way home.


Very, very few people in the civilized world would consider that a positive thing. The fact that you can't do such an insane thing anymore counts as a victory of civilization over barbarism. You don't carry a gun to school, period. People shouldn't carry guns to begin with, but teenagers certainly shouldn't. They can't drink alcohol because we agree that they cannot handle it responsibly yet, then why should they be ok with guns?

Stop blaming the gun, a gun by itself has never killed anyone, its the nut wielding it. I can own 10 guns if I wanted to, doesn't mean I am off to find a nice church to shoot up.


A nutcase who can get guns is much more dangerous than a nutcase who can't.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2015
People only need guns to defend themselves because people can have guns.


People also have knives, fists, clubs, ....while a 100 lb woman has a .380. and the woman with the .380 will likely not be raped or beaten or killed if she uses her gun.

Note the rising rape rate in Sweden, http://www.nation...ape-rate


More false statistics. Sweden's 'rise' in rape rates comes from the re-categorizing of a number of crimes, including sexual assault, under the heading of rape.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
Ok... 2nd ammendment gives you the right to bear arms. Ok fine! Uphold your constitional rights, at least you have something that clear cut. Australia certainly doesn't. What about the constitutional right to bear ammunition?
Doesn't say anything about ammunition in the constitution, just bearing arms. Make ammunition restricted and highly expensive and see how many mass shooting happen. You keep your NRA fanatics happy with their constitutional rights not being infringed upon, and you get to keep your kids bullet hole free. Whaddya say?
I say youre a retard who doesnt know how to think for himself.

Ammo is easier to smuggle than firearms. Certainly easier than illegal aliens. And its easy to make.

But the 2nd amendment specifically allows for guns used for defense. This only works with LOADED guns. They arent really designed to be used as clubs you know?


BS. The 2nd amendment allows guns in order to form a well-regulated militia. Nothing more, nothing less.
Manfred Particleboard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
Well not banning outright, restricting. Cyanide is a restricted substance, but if you are a gold miner then you can get tonnes of the stuff. And making meth from easily available Pseudoephedrine and a reductant of choice is something any monkey can be shown how to do. But try starting with toluene as a feedstock and see how much ends up on the street!. Same with Ammo. I can imagine the conversation Eric Harris and Dylan Kleybold might have had if they had to make ammunition from scratch.
"just wait until I find out how to make nitrocellulose, the 14% nitrogen stuff not the stuff that makes plastic film, and then turn it into a high surface area ball powder. And when I get the reliability from the percussion caps i've been working on... man that AR15 is going to shoot four maybe five people tops!"
Manfred Particleboard
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
BTW, since there has been reference to Australia; the restriction to automatic firearms since Port Arthur hasn't seen Australia have a mass shooting since. But Martin Bryant was a nutcase who with greater emphasis to mental health intervention would have prevented the tragedy. He was known as a risk to himself and others well before the shooting. But the authorities were powerless to intervene. Perhaps in the future better frameworks can be drawn up that identify at risk people and give mental health "crack troops" , for want of a better term, the power to make decisive interventions with vulnerable people. It's a tough one. Trying to balance the need for authority with an individuals rights. It needs thinking about no less.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing less.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing less.


You just love lying by selective quoting, don't you?

"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 part before the common is the reason, the part after it is the action taken because of that reason. It's not rocket science, but you just don't seem to get it.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
Well not banning outright, restricting. Cyanide is a restricted substance, but if you are a gold miner then you can get tonnes of the stuff.

Legitemate use is fine. If you want to do gun related sports then mandate that all guns or all ammo (or both) be stored at the range. If you have a professional need for a gun (police, etc.) then the gun should be stored at the place where you work.

Perhaps in the future better frameworks can be drawn up that identify at risk people and give mental health "crack troops" ,

Then at the very least there should be mandatory, frequent mental health checks for all gun owners. Just like in Japan
http://www.japant...6B2PuV8E

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
"Surveillance camera footage shows a woman vacuuming her car — a white Honda — when a red minivan with four people in it pulls up alongside the vehicle. The suspect exits the minivan and jumps into the woman's car, getting behind the wheel and putting it in reverse.

"The victim jumped onto the hood of the car in a desperate attempt to stop the carjacking, but she soon found herself hanging on for dear life as the car sped up through the car wash.

"Fortunately, an off-duty Smyrna city worker with a concealed carry license happened to be at the car wash that afternoon... he grabbed his gun, chased after the vehicle and fired one shot through the window, hitting the suspect in the shoulder and putting a stop to the carjacking."

-These incidents happen all the time. You form your antigun opinions without knowing about ANY of them.

If you knew about them your opinions on the incompetence of the typical gun owner, and the need for self-defense, would have to change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
A nutcase who can get guns is much more dangerous than a nutcase who can't
Nutcases will always be able to get guns... or knives, or petrol bombs, or cars for that matter. The ONLY WAY to stop someone intent on harming lots of people, or to get an intruder out of your house, is with a gun.

We learned the utility, the indispensibility, of weapons during the pleistocene. Why is it that suddenly this doesn't apply? Does eurodisney teach that bad guys are cartoon characters like Bluto?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
The part before the common is the reason, the part after it is the action taken because of that reason. It's not rocket science, but you just don't seem to get it
I guess YOU didn't get that the supreme court as well as many lower courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment ensures the right to own guns for self-protection.

Why not? Did you not bother to look it up? Did you read about it and dismiss it because in your mind such a thing couldn't be true?

It is. Guns for self-defense are guaranteed by the constitution.

LOOK IT UP.

Most of the posters here are just old and haven't updated their tired and obsolete and debunked mantras from the 60s. This is why idiot antigun laws are defeated. This is why the politicians who try to pass them are consistently voted out of office. Because the majority of voters are reasonable, thinking people.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2015
"Surveillance camera footage shows a woman vacuuming her car — a white Honda — when a red minivan with four people in it pulls up alongside the vehicle. The suspect exits the minivan and jumps into the woman's car, getting behind the wheel and putting it in reverse.[etc. etc.]... he grabbed his gun, chased after the vehicle and fired one shot through the window, hitting the suspect in the shoulder and putting a stop to the carjacking."

-These incidents happen all the time. You form your antigun opinions without knowing about ANY of them.

If you knew about them your opinions on the incompetence of the typical gun owner, and the need for self-defense, would have to change.


Since when is an anecdote sufficient grounds for sweeping statements like that?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be 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 ... "
-- Samuel Adams,

"[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, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason,
http://econfacult...rms.html

ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
The part before the common is the reason, the part after it is the action taken because of that reason. It's not rocket science, but you just don't seem to get it
I guess YOU didn't get that the supreme court as well as many lower courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment ensures the right to own guns for self-protection.

Why not? Did you not bother to look it up? Did you read about it and dismiss it because in your mind such a thing couldn't be true?

It is. Guns for self-defense are guaranteed by the constitution.

LOOK IT UP.


Guns are allowed by the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself, and they are allowed for the EXPLICITLY STATED REASON of forming a well-organized militia.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
I told you Thomas it is but one example of dozens that occur every week. I'm not going to post all of them for you.

If you really wanted to know you would do your own searches and draw your own conclusions.

But you dont. Singing kum-by-yah by the fire is more appealing to you I suppose.
EXPLICITLY STATED REASON
-And you're still wrong. Screaming it don't make it any less wrong.

Look it up. You obviously need the practice.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

We see that the socialists here want people to be state slaves, disarmed to make it more difficult for people to oppose their edicts.

you just don't seem to get it.

I get it.
TQ and the other socialists MUST abolish the 2nd amendment to be able to control the lives of others.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is VERY clear. Loud and clear for any who care to do a wee bit of research.
And we see from history and current events how prescient Madison, Hamilton, Adams, et al were.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself


The 2nd Amendment IS as valid part of the Constitution as Articles I-V and ALL other amendments.

Amendments are amendments to the Constitution and constitute the Constitution.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (23) Jul 07, 2015
Oh, stop it!

You selfish goobers are ruining America. If you are so independent, stop using our roads and the internet!

Nobody wants to control your irrelevant and pathetically-selfish life!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
""And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

"... domestic usurpation of power by rulers..."

This is why socialists like TQ need to attack the 2nd amendment so they can destroy the rest of the Constitution.

MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
Rygg great quotes, you really know your stuff. This all comes down to the Progressive/Socialist's almost insane desire to control every aspect of peoples lives. For the most part they are effete snobs that are convinced that they have superior minds and are capable of more rational decisions than the proletariat.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 07, 2015
"This all comes down to the Progressive/Socialist's almost insane desire to control every aspect of peoples lives."
---------------------------------------

It was Scalia who ruled that if you have been sentenced to death, but can now PROVE your innocence, the government can still kill you anyway, if you have used up your allotted time to contest it.

Remember the old movies of Police States, where they come up and demand to see your "papers"? Scalia ruled if you cannot PROVE who you are, the police can put you in jail.

Who inflicted the Conservative Police State on us after their failure, their Criminal Negligence of 9/11?

It was the SCARED conservatives, the pathetic selfishly-obsessed, who did it to us, because they got SCARED!
Guy_Underbridge
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
This is why socialists like blah blah blah...(random NRA talking points mixed with pseudo-libertarian babble)


Nowhere else in the world is there a problem of school kids killing school kids of this magnitude.

The problem isn't the guns, it's who have the guns. Are you saying this is a justified price to pay for your freedom to have unregulated guns?
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
First of all we do not have "unregulated" guns. And yes, freedom is not free but servitude is.
denglish
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
Failure of mental health awareness, and breakdown of basic family values (respect for authority, self-respect) are the root causes of mass violence.

How very saddening that this is not realized; that the focus is on eviscerating the US Constitution instead of helping people in need and strengthening family values.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 07, 2015
" And yes, freedom is not free "
-------------------------------------

Really?

What did you pay for yours?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Gkam at the very minimum the cost of freedom is making the effort to understand the principals on which this country was founded. Fighting a propaganda spewing press and fighting a politically biased educational system every chance one gets is another "war" that needs fighting. Finally, fighting those who wish to disregard the constitution for political purposes is a never ending battle that must be fought each day.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
"It was Scalia who ruled that if you have been sentenced to death, but can now PROVE your innocence, the government can still kill you anyway, if you have used up your allotted time to contest it." I am not familiar with that ruling but on the surface it looks to be blatantly unfair.

Also, if it can be proven that a prosecutor has purposely tampered with or destroyed evidence that could clear a suspect the prosecutor should receive the same sentence that the accused would have gotten, including a death sentence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2015
Rygg great quotes, you really know your stuff. This all comes down to the Progressive/Socialist's almost insane desire to control every aspect of peoples lives. For the most part they are effete snobs that are convinced that they have superior minds and are capable of more rational decisions than the proletariat.

Bastiat said as much over 150 years ago in The Law.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Nowhere else in the world is there a problem of school kids killing school kids of this magnitude.

In the US, we don't have Pakistani men raping school girls for years.

What magnitude? What is the scale of measure?

"The Fourth International Conference on School Violence and the newly
created International Journal of School Violence are the most recent
reminders that school violence is a global phenomenon. Time and again the
public in countries with cultures as diverse as Japan and Jordan, Finland,
Brazil, Norway, Israel, Malaysia, Columbia, South Africa, USA and Ethiopia
are alarmed by atrocious acts of senseless violence in schools. In a recent
tragic incident in Finland a masked gunman opened fire at his trade school in
Finland, killing 10 people and burning some of their bodies before fatally
shooting himself in the head. This is an almost exact replication of a previous
incident in Finland less than a year earlier that left 11 casualties."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
The fact that this journal exists suggest violence in schools occurs all over the world.

International Journal of Violence and School – 7 – December 2008
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
I am going to take a guess that Scalia was trying to prevent frivolous appeals based on false and unsubstantiated "New Evidence". These are common delaying techniques used by defense attorneys to subvert the system.

If he was disallowing something like positive DNA evidence that was scientifically unavailable in the past there is no excuse for his decision.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Guns are allowed by the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself...
@ThomasQuinn
1- the "bill of rights" is part fo the US Constitution
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution
https://en.wikipe...f_Rights

2- the militia members who are the "EXPLICITLY STATED REASON" as you posted, historically had to provide their OWN weapons, powder and ammo for the "militia", which means that the authors of the Constitution simply meant that everyone should own weapons for the sake of being called upon to join a militia. see also: The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution by Brion McClannahan

3- https://en.wikipe...ivil_War

So, as you can see, the Bill IS part of the constitution and the "militia" were simply already armed citizens called to defend

MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Kudos Mr. Captain Stumpy. I will always pay respect to a truthful and well thought out post.

( That I agree with. Hehe)
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
" Fighting a propaganda spewing press and fighting a politically biased educational system every chance one gets is another "war" that needs fighting."
------------------------------------

I have never heard a war veteran say "Freedom isn't free", . . and they paid your cost for you.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
I have never heard a war veteran say "Freedom isn't free", . . and they paid your cost for you.

OK Gkam I am a welfare recipient in this regard. I received a deferment because of my occupation. ALL of the veterans I know are well aware of the costs of freedom. They above all know that freedom must be earned everyday or it will disappear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
" Fighting a propaganda spewing press and fighting a politically biased educational system every chance one gets is another "war" that needs fighting."
------------------------------------

I have never heard a war veteran say "Freedom isn't free", . . and they paid your cost for you.
And you earned your freedom soldering circuit boards in Thailand. And you express your cowardice every day by posting lies and bullshit and refusing to own up to it.

How do these qualities compare with a vet who actually fought?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
ALL of the veterans I know are well aware of the costs of freedom. They above all know that freedom must be earned everyday or it will disappear.

almost every veteran i know (with very rare exception) also states that "Freedom isn't free", so i don't know where this particular argument is going

i also state it

I have never heard a war veteran say "Freedom isn't free", . . and they paid your cost for you.

what was the purpose of this particular statement, gkam?
i don't understand?

it doesn't make any sense?

see above
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
"And you earned your freedom soldering circuit boards in Thailand. And you express your cowardice every day by posting lies and bullshit and refusing to own up to it."

Well at least I did contribute to my countries defense and did not run away to Canada like most of today's Progressives.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2015
had to provide their own weapons
So i guess you didnt want to look it up either?

"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."... it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service."

-an individual right, for self-defense.

It was in the news.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
So i guess you didnt want to look it up either?
@otto
I did look it up... but it was not relevant to the post he made which i answered
try re-reading that
Guns are allowed by the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself, and they are allowed for the EXPLICITLY STATED REASON of forming a well-organized militia.
this is both wrong today (as you [otto] noted in your above and other previous posts)
as well as historically (as i noted in my post, as it was more relevant to his specific wording)

gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
Those who need guns to be equal to the rest of us are exactly the folk who should not have them. Outgrow them like the rest of us.

And, . . Stumpy, I get tired of those who never even thought of serving bleating to us who have how "Freedom isn't free!". They paid nothing while many of us still pay. I will not take a lecture on patriotism from a stay-at-home "patriot".
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
I get tired of those who never even thought of serving bleating to us who have how "Freedom isn't free!". They paid nothing while many of us still pay. I will not take a lecture on patriotism from a stay-at-home "patriot".

Still going on with that false persona. Stolen Valor, and a Masters degree that can't tell the difference between a Mwh and Kwh.

If it wasn't pitiful, it'd be offensive. In the end, I feel sorry for these types of people.

Failure of mental health awareness, and breakdown of basic family values (respect for authority, self-respect) are the root causes of mass violence.

How very saddening that this is not realized; that the focus is on eviscerating the US Constitution (under the false-guise of prior military service!) instead of helping people in need and strengthening family values.

gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
You really are another pseudonym of otto.

You don't know what valor is, being a stay-at-home and wannabe. You gun nuts are just in arrested development, wanting to be like the real folk, but not achieving it. Are you a hunter? Get real kicks by blowing the guts out of a helpless bird? No? Do you need "protection" from all those socialists out there wanting to get your "things"?

I am AF19839588 and a war vet. How about you? Want to see when I was Airman of the Month for the entire Air force Flight Test Center? Want to see my picture in several military web sites?

Let's see yours. You challenged me. Show up.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
You really are another pseudonym of otto.

You don't know what valor is, being a stay-at-home and wannabe. You gun nuts are just in arrested development, wanting to be like the real folk, but not achieving it. Are you a hunter? Get real kicks by blowing the guts out of a helpless bird? No? Do you need "protection" from all those socialists out there wanting to get your "things"?

I am AF19839588 and a war vet. How about you?

Let's see yours. You challenged me. Show up.

Failure of mental health awareness, and breakdown of basic family values (respect for authority, self-respect) are the root causes of mass violence.

How very saddening that this is not realized; that the focus is on eviscerating the US Constitution (under the false-guise of prior military service!) instead of helping people in need and strengthening family values.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
denglish, you have neither the education nor experience to debate, so you invent red herrings.

Basic Family Values like those of Diaper David Vitter, who had prostitutes put hm in diapers? I have a feeling the best part came next, followed by them cleaning him up after his acts, like we had to do with Dubya.
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
denglish, you have neither the education nor experience to debate, so you invent red herrings.

You claim that mental health awareness and re-invigorating family values that build a respect for authority and self respect are red-herring concerns re: avoiding societally-destructive and self-destructive behaviors.

You are sick.

Basic Family Values like those of Diaper David Vitter, who had prostitutes put hm in diapers? What do I have a feeling the best part came next, followed by them cleaning him up after his acts,

That has nothing to do with the topic = Red-Herring.

like we had to do with Dubya.

That has nothing to do with the topic = Red-Herring

You choose to tear down the constitution instead of help others. Building a false identity (including military service) on the internet and introducing nonsensical arguments to detract from the real issues is pathetic. You are a sick, sick person.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
I think you may be a gun nut. Is it because you are SCARED of the rest of us?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
"I think you may be a gun nut. Is it because you are SCARED of the rest of us"

Well yes, if you represent the same sort totalitarian government that our founding fathers rebelled against I just might be afraid of you.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
I think you may be a gun nut. Is it because you are SCARED of the rest of us?

I'm scared of people like you.

Claimed to have a Master's Degree: can't tell the difference between a Mwh and a Kwh. Can't do a simple resource equation.

Claims military service falsely. Stolen Valor is reprehensible.

Uses important issues such as societal safety to spout political hate speech.

And no, I'm not a gun-nut. However, unlike you, I am a United States Citizen, and not only do I cherish our constitution, I also cherish our people.

That you would label a belief that mental health awareness and re-invigoration of family values is a good step toward stopping mass violence as Red-Herring material, indicates that you are either disgustingly sick, or an idiot that spouts terms they do not understand; much like your buddy that cites papers they can't summarize.

Yes, you scare me.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2015
In fact Gcam I will see your bet and raise you one better. I am a gun owing law abiding citizen who has never been arrested. WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF ME??????
denglish
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
In fact Gcam I will see your bet and raise you one better. I am a gun owing law abiding citizen who has never been arrested. WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF ME??????

I can answer that:

Armed people are citizens.

Un-armed people are subjects.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Why are socialists afraid of citizens with weapons, but not the police?
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2015
First of all we do not have "unregulated" guns. And yes, freedom is not free but servitude is.


Funny. Europeans don't seem to be living in servitude. Yet we don't have your gun-fetish nor your abominal homicide rates.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2015
Guns are allowed by the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself...
@ThomasQuinn
1- the "bill of rights" is part fo the US Constitution
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution
https://en.wikipe...f_Rights

So, as you can see, the Bill IS part of the constitution and the "militia" were simply already armed citizens called to defend

No, the Bill of Rights is a set of changes and additions to the constitution. It has the same power of law, but it is entirely separate, coming about in a completely different way.

Yes, militiamen had to provide their own weapons, muskets, not bushmasters, but the sole purpose of allowing citizens to own weapons was to enable them to be part of a well-regulated militia. That's what the text says, explicitly! When the militia system was abolished in favor of a national guard, the 2nd amendment was effectively maimed.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Europeans don't seem to be living in servitude.


Does a fish know it's in water?

Looks like the EUers have been serving Greece now for a few years and the Greeks and the EUers will discover what happens when you run out of other people's money.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
"And you earned your freedom soldering circuit boards in Thailand. And you express your cowardice every day by posting lies and bullshit and refusing to own up to it."

Well at least I did contribute to my countries defense and did not run away to Canada like most of today's Progressives.


Vietnam a contribution to your country's defense? That's pretty rich. Vietnam didn't give you anything, not in the last place because you were incapable of understanding that Vietnam was never going to be a puppet state to China or Russia any more than it was going to be a puppet state to France.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
but it is entirely separate, coming about in a completely different way.


So?
ALL Amendments AND the ALL the articles constitute the Constitution.

what the text says, explicitly


...the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...

And, when you research the Federalist papers, a series of articles written before ratification to explain the Constitution, you can understand the intent of what was written.
The INTENT was for the armed citizen to be a check on the power of a tyrannical federal govt, which we now have.

ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
"I think you may be a gun nut. Is it because you are SCARED of the rest of us"

Well yes, if you represent the same sort totalitarian government that our founding fathers rebelled against I just might be afraid of you.


Totalitarian? Georgian Britain? Do you know anything about history at all, or do you just make it up as you go along?
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
but it was not relevant to the post he made which i answered
try re-reading that
Guns are allowed by the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the constitution itself, and they are allowed for the EXPLICITLY STATED REASON of forming a well-organized militia.
this is both wrong today (as you [otto] noted in your above and other previous posts)
as well as historically (as i noted in my post, as it was more relevant to his specific wording)



You can keep repeating that, it doesn't make it true. If you can't see the distinction between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then I seriously recommend you pick up a book about the early politics of the US - for a start, the Constitution was drawn up by Federalists, while the Bill of Rights was intensely anti-Federalist in both content and congressional support.

The reason for allowing firearms in the 2nd amendment is made explicit. Why are you having such trouble accepting the explanation the 2nd amendment itself offers?
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
but it is entirely separate, coming about in a completely different way.


The INTENT was for the armed citizen to be a check on the power of a tyrannical federal govt, which we now have.



You don't have a tyrannical federal government. You simply hate anything to the left of the John Birch Society and will rationalize accordingly.

You know what the closest thing to tyranny was your country has experienced? When it introduced a draft to fight an undeclared war. That was a clear violation of the citizens' rights.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
Europeans don't seem to be living in servitude.


Does a fish know it's in water?

Looks like the EUers have been serving Greece now for a few years and the Greeks and the EUers will discover what happens when you run out of other people's money.


Talk about uninformed jingoist BS. "Serving Greece", do you do a lot of fascist rhetoric? 'Cause that's exactly the kind of demagoguery Mussolini's scum liked to engage in. If you think the EU is spending "other people's money", you clearly haven't the least comprehension of how fiduciary currency works. I'm not surprised, btw.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
And, when you research the Federalist papers, a series of articles written before ratification to explain the Constitution, you can understand the intent of what was written.
The INTENT was for the armed citizen to be a check on the power of a tyrannical federal govt, which we now have.


The Federalist papers convey the point of view of ONE of the several factions that created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and governed the States and the Federal government during the first generation of American independence. They were written before the formative decade of the 1790s saw a real America taking shape. Using the Federalist papers to explain the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015

what the text says, explicitly


...the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...



Yes, the PEOPLE, in an age when collectivism was the norm and individualism was, even in America, not appreciated. That wouldn't come for two more generations. To an American in 1790, it would be perfectly obvious that the right to bear arms was a direct result of communal duty and indistinguishable from this. We are talking about an age of flintlock smoothbore muskets when an armed individual was incapable of causing a large massacre and when it took a shoulder-to-shoulder line for firearms to be effective.

The idea of anyone owning a number of automatic weapons to protect themselves without any communal control would be alien on very many levels to a person living in the 1790s. The firepower would be terrifying to them, but not as much as the individualist approach to weapons.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2015
"We are talking about an age of flintlock smoothbore muskets when an armed individual was incapable of causing a large massacre and when it took a shoulder-to-shoulder line for firearms to be effective."

I see government powers can increase as needed but personal rights must be relegated to the 1700s for the safety of the nation.

TQ why are you so afraid of the average law abiding citizen who own a gun????
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
No, the Bill of Rights is a set of changes and additions to the constitution
@Quinn
you are disagreeing and agreeing with me.
the amendments ARE part of the constitution...
The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States.
https://en.wikipe...f_Rights

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
the problem is not this
If you can't see the distinction between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then I seriously recommend you pick up a book about the early politics of the US
but rather that you cannot comprehend that the constitution is a living document designed to be adapted as needed.

the main body is only segregated (as you note) because it was written before the amendments... http://www.uscons...nst.html

if you will note, the amendments are considered part of the constitution even by the GOV web page, so designating them as NOT a pert of the constitution is simply a semantic argument which is used for distraction from the whole.

also note: just because the term "militia" was used, doesnt mean that the citizenry are to be disarmed because we have a standing army

you don't swear an oath to protect and defend "only the body" of the constitution as a soldier, judge or law enforcement officer, but the whole document
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
The reason for allowing firearms in the 2nd amendment is made explicit.
@QUinn
and at that i would suggest you speak to your congressmen and request military grade weapons for all citizens of the US...

right?
as we are to be called upon (including former soldiers, regardless) for defense, then it stands to reason that the populace should be armed with efficient weaponry for the defense of a nation, as the original document was designed around the building of armies from armed citizenry.

if you would read the book i suggested above, you will also note that the document was amended to reflect the absolute need for the populace to never be in the position of being subjugated by a totalitarian regime, therefore, per the founding fathers and the members of our national congress in the first decades, we chose to keep the populace armed to specifically have the means to defend the constitution and insure a free nation
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
Foreigners should not be commenting on US Constitutional matters.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2015
individualism was, even in America, not appreciated.


BS

communal control would be alien on very many levels to a person living in the 1790s.


MORE BS
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2015
We have the Second Amendment because we had No Standing Army! The Founding Fathers thought it would lead on "adventures" such as Iraq, so we had none. They counted on the State Militias for defense, and those are now the State Guard units.

If you want a gun, join up.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
@ CaptainStumpy, please stop posting political philosophy at a science site.

Your post contains no peer reviewed science germane to the present article. Please read the comment guidelines and use the scientific method next time. You have been reported.

//sarcasm
denglish
3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
We have the Second Amendment because we had No Standing Army! The Founding Fathers thought it would lead on "adventures" such as Iraq, so we had none. They counted on the State Militias for defense, and those are now the State Guard units.

If you want a gun, join up.

That's ironic, coming from someone claiming military service falsely. #stolenvalor

Why don't you tell them the real reason you want the 2nd amendment abolished? Its because the NRA is a powerful conservative lobby.

People like you disgust me. You use the suffering of innocents to further your political agenda instead of urging the need to understand mental health and foster positive child growth through strong family values.

You wouldn't know either of these things because you believe lieing and assumption can get everything a dependent needs.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2015
@ CaptainStumpy, please stop posting political philosophy at a science site.

Your post contains no peer reviewed science germane to the present article. Please read the comment guidelines and use the scientific method next time. You have been reported.

//sarcasm

Hopefully that person stays out of US matters. They may have an idiotic ability to post what they don't understand, but making comments on something as uniquely American as the Constitution is out of their league; big time.

This person gkam fancies themselves a US citizen, but their willingness to capitalize on the suffering of innocents in order to further a political agenda instead of recovery, root cause, and corrective action removes that moniker from their passport.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2015
debnglish cannot debate an issue, so she tries to smear the character of others, . . . only to reveal her own.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (19) Jul 08, 2015
individualism was, even in America, not appreciated.


BS

communal control would be alien on very many levels to a person living in the 1790s.


MORE BS


I see you have sunk to manipulating quotes now. "The idea of anyone owning a number of automatic weapons to protect themselves without any communal control would be alien on very many levels to a person living in the 1790s"

Maybe you just need to study history some more.
ThomasQuinn
1.5 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
the problem is not this
edited for length
but rather that you cannot comprehend that the constitution is a living document designed to be adapted as needed.

the main body is only segregated (as you note) because it was written before the amendments... http://www.uscons...nst.html


No, what I'm arguing is that you need to consider them in the light of the history of how they came about - the Constitution as a Federalist document, the Bill of Rights as an anti-Federalist reaction. If you see them as one undifferentiated whole you are not doing them justice.

also note: just because the term "militia" was used, doesnt mean that the citizenry are to be disarmed because we have a standing army


It's not about the standing army, but about what eventually became the National Guard. It replaced militias in the late 19th century, and as such the 2nd amendment would have needed to be updated, but it wasn't. That makes its meaning and relevance doubtful.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
No, what I'm arguing is that you need to consider them in the light of the history of how they came about - the Constitution as a Federalist document, the Bill of Rights as an anti-Federalist reaction. If you see them as one undifferentiated whole you are not doing them justice
@Thomas
historically is not how they are viewed today, however... even the GOV website places the amendments as part of the constitution

If you take the historical view of the constitution, then you also have to consider that it was originally designed to be a living document for adaptation as needed, which means that we must accept the "bill of rights" as an extension of the original

those rights are vital to your continued freedoms as they're covering things missed by the original federalist document (such as the right to not self incriminate, which is now a "privilege" per the Supreme Court- see: Salinas v. Texas)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
@Thomas cont'd
It's not about the standing army, but about what eventually became the National Guard. It replaced militias in the late 19th century, and as such the 2nd amendment would have needed to be updated, but it wasn't. That makes its meaning and relevance doubtful.
i disagree, especially about the claim the 2nd needed to be updated.

considering that the bill of rights was amended and included, voted upon etc, i believe that the signers realised that the only way to combat a possible overthrow (or, again, to prevent tyranny) was to accept the 2nd amendment. there were some discussions back and forth, but as i noted with the book reference above (McClannahan) the inclusion was also based upon the historical English tyranny over the colonies and to insure that it could not be repeated... it was a stroke of genius to prevent disarming the public and making subjects out of them
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
Hopefully that person stays out of US matters. They may have an idiotic ability to post what they don't understand, but making comments on something as uniquely American as the Constitution is out of their league; big time.
@d-TROLL
conspiracy theorist ideation

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you shouldn't post about things you do not understand
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Captain although you and I disagree on climate change your stand on the 2nd amendment indicates to me that we likely have the same views on most other subjects, including possibly limited government.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
Folks, it was because we had NO standing army, and needed the guns of the organized official State Militia. Period.

It had nothing to do with opposing our government, nor anything else but defense of the nation. Those of you who "need" guns will argue and deny, but that is the history.

Repeat for me the first phrase of the Second Amendment, please.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Let's face it guys today's violence is just evolution at work. The US government has created a society where psychopathic drug gangs rule the inner cities and have given a survival advantage to the criminally insane.. They have absolutely NO regard for human life. Thus, in all it's wisdom the progressive government has decided that it is the law abiding gun owning citizen that is creating the problem. Looking at the Socialist governments of the very recient past one has to ask ones self why would they want to disarm the people. We seem to have no problem arming other countries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
did look it up
No you didnt
it was not relevant to the post he made which i answered
Of course it was. The supreme court which I'd comprised of people a lot smarter than you, concluded that the 2nd amendment, like the others, guaranteed personal rights, that is, the right to protect ones life and ones property.

You'll have to do some research to understand how this relates to the militia thing which, in their minds, was apparently ancillary to the need for personal defense.

I don't care what it SAYS. I only care what the highest court in the land interpreted it to MEAN.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Those gangs are not exactly full of bleeding-heart liberals, but the selfish and violent "me-first" kind. It is selfishness which is killing America. The glorification of the armed loner, a Hollywood staple has sent us into a cesspool of armed goobers looking for an excuse to feel powerful.

Do you have a gun, 166?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
"Cold, dead, hands" gun owners were not on the minds of the Founding Fathers. Defending a new nation without a standing army was. if you are member of the state Guard, you can have a gun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
And yes, despite what insipid lying posturers like to invent, by the time the 2ND amendment was adopted we had a standing army.

"The Continental Army was formed after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain. The Continental Army was supplemented by local militias and other troops that remained under control of the individual states. General George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the army throughout the war.

"Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under General Anthony Wayne. This became the foundation of the United States Army in 1796."
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
Did somebody "forget" to look up the very first phrase of the Second Amendment, which puts it all in perspective?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
"I don't care what it SAYS. I only care what the highest court in the land interpreted it to MEAN"

Well Otto there was a time when I might have agreed with that but not anymore. Obamacare and the eminent domain rulings are a prime example of a Supreme Court that wants to usurp Congress and the Constitution by rewriting the laws as they see fit. I think that the framers of the Constitution made a huge mistake giving so much power to a body that has no checks and balances. If they as a body allow their political agendas to interfere with their rulings the whole system falls apart.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
"Detroit — A woman shot a suspect during an attempted carjacking early Monday on the city's west side, police said.

"An armed man approached the 27-year-old woman around 5:30 a.m. on the 11400 block of Auburn, Officer Jennifer Moreno said.
"He attempted to carjack her at gunpoint," Moreno said. "She pulled her gun and shot the suspect."

-Insipid lying posturers would like to disarm good people like this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Did somebody "forget" to look up the very first phrase of the Second Amendment
Did insipid lying posturers forget to find out what the supreme court as well as many lower courts decided it MEANT?

Of course. They would rather pretend they know as they are too timid to admit, even to themselves, that they dont.

How disgusting.
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Gun nuts and those who "need" guns are exactly the ones who should not have them. Why are these folk SO SCARED?? And of what? Somebody going to take their "things"?

Is the Supreme Court going to make them buy wind power? What???!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
MR166 who cares what you think? Many lower courts reached the same conclusion regarding the 2nd amendment. And even if SCOTUS may have reached other unpopular decisions, this does not mean this one was wrong.

Your example is a decidedly liberal one. The personal right of self-defense is a conservative one, much harder to reach by this body.

More evidence that it is correct.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
@d-TROLLyou shouldn't post about things you do not understand

Still burnt about not being able to decipher the paper that you so vociferously endorsed, or are you still burnt over endorsing the poor guy who (improperly) took a shot at it? Or perhaps your burnt about the paper as a whole proving the point of not knowing enough about climate change to warrant meddling with ecosystems?

Foreigners have no hope of understanding the American condition. Much as your MIT education fails at deciphering academic papers, and your buddy's Master's Degree fails at differentiating Mwh and Kwh:

The concept of Americanism and Compassion is impossible for foreigners to understand. They are so at risk of having their world view muddied by internal liberal hatred that it is best to pat them on the back and say, "thanks for the input, but this is our Constitution; go away".

Go away. Do not post about what you don't understand.

denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
debnglish cannot debate an issue, so she tries to smear the character of others, . . . only to reveal her own.


This person gkam fancies themselves a US citizen, but their willingness to capitalize on the suffering of innocents in order to further a political agenda instead of recovery, root cause, and corrective action removes that moniker from their passport.


You cannot refute this statement. Instead, you obfuscate.

Why are you focused on hatred instead of healing? People like you are the ones that foster the killing an maiming of others so that you may one day realize your political agenda. You create falsity in all arenas, even to the point of claiming false education credentials and false military service; a mask to hide the real you.

You would see innocents suffer and be deceived in order to further your agenda. You are sick.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 08, 2015
"Foreigners have no hope of understanding the American condition. Much as your MIT education fails at deciphering academic papers, and your buddy's Master's Degree fails at differentiating Mwh and Kwh:"
------------------------------------------

This is hilarious. You got ALL of it wrong.

You ARE otto!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
"DETROIT -
A Detroit woman defended herself with gunfire early Tuesday morning when a group of men broke into her home.

"The woman, who goes by the nickname Ms. Dee, said she was jolted awake around 2 a.m. when one of the men broke through her bedroom window of her home on Whitehill and pointed a gun in her face. Three or four more men followed behind.

"I was able to get to my gun. They didn't know I had it. By that time, it was just gunfire," Ms. Dee said.

"She was hit in the foot and is expected to be OK. She said she believes at least one of the men was also shot.

"Ms. Dee said she got a gun license after her home was broken into three years ago"

-Insipid lying posturing COWARDS call this woman a cowardly gun nut and demean her justified fear that she would again be a victim.

What a foul little man you are gkam.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
giving so much power to a body that has no checks and balances.

They did not.
SCOTUS took it.

"Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. {we are now there} Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."
https://en.wikipe..._Madison
gkam
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 08, 2015
"The concept of Americanism and Compassion is impossible for foreigners to understand."
----------------------------

More hilarity!

Who got SO SCARED they mass-murdered 200,000 Iraqi civilians who had done NOTHING to us?

Did you get their oil? No? It was all in vain?

Did you PAY for what you did yet? American "Compassion" would demand it. Pay up, Republicans!
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Thanks for that info Ryggs. I was unaware of that particular bit of history. Otto I am not saying that every SCOTUS decision was bad and I am on the same side as you concerning the 2nd amendment. I was just noting that they have usurped an awful amount of power over the years.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
Weaklings and police and the military need guns in rare moments. Most of the time they do not. Civilians only have psychological needs for guns.

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
"Weaklings and police and the military need guns in rare moments."

Gkam you look to be a victim of RSS seek medical help before it gets out of control (RSS= Random Silly Syndrome)
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
Unable to debate, 166 takes the low road.

Do you need a gun? Have one? Is it locked away? Got a trigger lock? Unloaded?

Then, why have it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Weaklings and police and the military need guns in rare moments. Most of the time they do not. Civilians only have psychological needs for guns.
@gkam
you are very wrong: see Otto's post re: "DETROIT -
A Detroit woman defended herself with gunfire early Tuesday morning when a group of men broke into her home"

this is an assumption of someone who is living in a protected community where there is regular and rapid police intervention. this is NOT the case all over, nor is it even the case in larger urban areas, like CHicago, Miami, NYC or LA. Police response times can be anywhere from 2min to 4hours (or more) even in the larger cities, and that is not even discussing the lower income areas ...

i will always support the 2nd amendment simply because:
1-it is a part of the constitution
2- & more importantly- because it is the ONLY means of defense and it will allow even a geriatric to be equal to a youthful offender attempting felonious crimes
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
I understand.

Make sure nobody else gets the gun.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
Cont'd
Civilians only have psychological needs for guns
this is also a load of bunk: i regularly use mine for groceries

you can't make sweeping statements based upon your own personal experiences, as they are anecdotal and subjective... not everyone has the same lifestyle as you

No you didnt
@Otto
if you are feeling pissy, stick to posting anti-deng or anti-other folk
you are looking for a fight when we both happen to agree on most of the 2nd amendment issues, so put away your narcissistic ego

Foreigners have no hope of understanding the American condition.
@dung
Go away. Do not post about what you don't understand.
you still haven't provided ANY empirical evidence supporting your claims. you stick to opinion and personal conjecture, outright lies and fraudulent papers as well as assume that out of context graphics or blogs/opinion is somehow equivalent to validated studies

your lack of literacy is not our problem
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
" i regularly use mine for groceries"
------------------------------

Okay. Most of us do not.

Just keep it away from others. Gun owners are not usually the ones who pay for their mistakes. Most owners are fine, but mistakes happen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
this is an assumption of someone who is living in a protected community where there is regular and rapid police intervention
No police intervention short of a cop sitting in her bedroom could have defended her.

Do a search on 'woman shoots intruder or home invader' and you will see dozens of examples from local news sites. If they want to be safe the only reliable alternative is a handgun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (21) Jul 08, 2015
if you are feeling pissy, stick to posting anti-deng or anti-other folk
If you are wrong then I will let you know it.

Are we clear on that?
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Stumpy, it is not you or most gun-owners I fear, but those who truly have psychological needs for man-killers, or those who are casual with storage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Stumpy, it is not you or most gun-owners I fear, but those who truly have psychological needs for man-killers, or those who are casual with storage.
LIAR. Throughout this thread you have demeaned gun owners as a whole. Now you are merely sucking up to one of the few supporters you have left.

Foul. Disgusting.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
http://news.yahoo...cs.html#

I wonder if this was one of Obama's "Fast and Furious" guns?
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Like Solyndra, that was started in the Dubya Bush administration, like those mass killings of Iraqi civilians, and the generation of a million PTSD cases, for which we will pay for generations.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
"Like Solyndra, that was started in the Dubya Bush administration."

Blatant half truths do not strengthen you case Gkam. I am not going to bother even post the real facts since you know them and are just someone who is more than willing to shade the truth for your agenda.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
It is a very reasonable position to be against guns - and one that can be supported with science.

No, it can't be supported with science.

"And now here's the part where I editorialize. Want to prevent gun violence and reduce the number of horrific events like what happened today? Great. Go stop being strangers to each other. Everybody wants the same thing here."
http://boingboing...-co.html

Everyone does NOT want the same thing here.
Socialists must abolish guns for control.
Anti-socialists do not want to be controlled by socialists.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (23) Jul 08, 2015
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-feds-deported-sfc-man-killing-155946812--politics.html#

I wonder if this was one of Obama's "Fast and Furious" guns?
Read the article before you post bullshit. It was stolen from a car.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
If the REAL issue was how to stop gun violence, then there would be mandatory firearms safety and use training from elementary school on up.
Everyone would have to shoot something, like a rabbit, squirrel, gopher and observe the effects of bullets.
Everyone would have to visit hospitals and morgues to observe the effects of gun shots.
Concealed carry permits would be readily issued, like Vermont does.

None of this is supported or advocated because the REAL issue to prevent gun violence against socialists who want to control the lives of others.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2015
Otto I read the article 2 more times and could find nothing about the gun being stolen from a car. If I certainly would not have made the post.
gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
"Otto I read the article 2 more times and could find nothing about the gun being stolen from a car. If I certainly would not have made the post."
-------------------------------------

Otto said that?

Yeah, like the things he imagined about many others. Did you get any filthy words? I got lots of them from otto before I stopped reading the posts, and put him on Ignore.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Ok Otto I read another article from CBS news and it DID mention that the gun was stolen from a car in June. So why did the Yahoo article choose to omit this very important fact? Perhaps this was new information that was just released or perhaps it was just made up as an excuse. Personally I really hope it was the former.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
More hilarity!

This is why foreigners, especially those with fake MIT degrees must stay away from American Liberals. In order to further their agenda, they make ignorant foreigners believe that America is evil, when the opposite is true.

With rare exception, only other Americans can see through them.

In 2012, USA donated $30.46 billion to other nations. Donated. GB was next at 13.659B.

Liberal agendas care not for those in need. Only power over the needy.

Go away. Do not post about what you don't understand.

Where do you live.

Still burnt about not being able to decipher the paper that you so vociferously endorsed, or are you still burnt over endorsing the poor guy who (improperly) took a shot at it? Or perhaps your burnt about the paper as a whole proving the point of not knowing enough about climate change to warrant meddling with ecosystems? What did MIT teach you anyway?

gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Did denglish answer my (very) technical questions regarding kWh and MWh?

Shall I go over it again?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
All I am saying is that an argument can be made for taking guns out of our society - and science can be used to support that argument.


No, it can't.

This is why I wish we could remove all the heat from the discussion -


No, you don't.

best way to move to a kinder society.

That's a non-scientific statement of value, and a lie, for you as you are not willing to accept the best way for the individual.
There is NO best way for 'society'. Only a better way for the individual.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Selfishness is not a virtue.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
Selfishness is not a virtue.

Then why does your political message endorse it?

gkam
1 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
You are confused and fooled again, like you probably were by Bush and Cheney.

My philosophy is one of live and let live, not kill for kicks, . . or oil.

I do not understand how the adolescents who fall for Ayn Rand never get to read her only serious book, in which she lays out her philosophy. It is "The Virtue of Selfishness", which ought to tell you something of her character.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
Otto I read the article 2 more times and could find nothing about the gun being stolen from a car. If I certainly would not have made the post.
So you need to be referencing the latest news articles.

"San Francisco (CNN)The gun used in the killing of a San Francisco woman in a case that gave new political prominence to the issue of illegal immigration was stolen from a vehicle belonging to a federal Bureau of Land Management agent, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday."
http://www.cnn.co...killing/
Did you get any filthy words? I got lots of them from otto before I stopped reading the posts, and put him on Ignore
You read all my posts you filthy liar. Your ego wont let you ignore them.

And filthy words are the only way to describe your filthy lying and fabricating.

Like the bullshit you made up about the 2nd amendment, and your filthy denigration of gun owners.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
My philosophy is one of live and let live, not kill for kicks, . . or oil.

Tell us about wealth re-distribution, welfare, and all the other social programs that teach people that it is better to receive than give.

I do not understand how the adolescents who fall for Ayn Rand never get to read her only serious book, in which she lays out her philosophy. It is "The Virtue of Selfishness", which ought to tell you something of her character.

There you go about character again. False claims of education and service, and you speak of character. Further, using political hate speech to hide the sufferings of those with poor mental health, and poor family situations. You are disgusting.

Virtue of Selfishness is a collection of essays. Call one out specifically, and summarize it, or be like MIT. Most serious people agree that the title of the book does not indicate the content.

Your Master's Degree failed again.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
No police intervention short of a cop sitting in her bedroom ...
Do a search on ....
@Otto
the comment you are "replying to" that i made which you posted the above to was in reference to gkams comment
Weaklings and police ...Civilians only have psychological needs for guns
so by adding in your crap and then posting
If you are wrong then I will let you know it.
Are we clear on that?
you are simply confusing the issue

i was not arguing about your post - moron...i was supporting it

It is a very reasonable position to be against guns - and one that can be supported with science
@Green
IMHO- i don't think either are true, and the data they are polling to get their [science] results is limited, as the stats they are pulling from in the studies don't even represent half of the states

Ask any law enforcement agency and you will likely hear the same thing: an armed populace is more likely to deter crime than a disarmed one

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
This is why foreigners, especially those with fake MIT degrees must stay away from American Liberals. In order to further their agenda, they make ignorant foreigners believe that America is evil, when the opposite is true.

With rare exception, only other Americans can see through them.
@dung
WTF are you talking about?
Where do you live.
how about Oxford Arkansas, home of the Beverly Hillbillies?
or do you prefer Flippin? or Toad Suck? or Booger Hollow?ROTFLMFAO

you are delusional ... you don't even know who you are arguing with... if you run your small business like you run your posts, then i know how it tanked! and it was not because of AGW or taxes!

what are you even trying to argue with that post?
LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
All I am saying is that an argument can be made for taking guns out of our society - and science can be used to support that argument
@Green
no, there isn't
1- the study you are talking: http://ajph.aphap...3.301409
2- the study pulls data from here: WISQARS, Census Bureau, National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics

the bulk come from the crimestat from DOJ-justice stats & CDC: http://www.cdc.go...rts.html

http://www.bjs.go...x003D;40

(note DOJ ref: 71 is to National Prisoner Statistics. Prisoner Series Reports)

not all states are equally represented and not all the data is also segregated for accuracy (which tripped up bloombergs bus) http://www.ammola...tim-wtf/

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
You are probably correct - but your statement does not support the overall question of if a society is better off in general
@Green cont'd
nor will it. this is a highly charged opinionated subject and there will be a lot of extremists on each side, especially as there is no reputable science being done WRT the subject.

If you follow the gun control side and their studies, you get reasons to get rid of guns, but based upon misinterpretations of evidence.

My suggestion is to simply follow the DOJ & other sites above and pull your own data, along with FOIA data and analyze it yourself, as this is the most accurate means of reviewing the data
the gov't will not sponsor research in this area, and the obutthead attempt already undermined the gov't with extremist views other than actual science

basically, you will not be able to get what you want.

and citing other cultures (like AUS, JAP or GB) is NOT going to help... they are different cultures, period
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
lastly, @green
and it certainly is not based in science
no, it isn't. it is based upon personal experience. which is irrelevant (but also why i told you to go to the cops and talk to them)
see the Australia example. However - I acknowledge that it is a contentious issue - and strong arguments can be made in either direction
let's be perfectly clear here... the AUS issue only removed the guns from the honest owners, not the criminals (which is still a problem there)
Also note: the core problem we have is NOT about guns at all, but about violence and it's manifestations (see all the arguments above)

guns are inanimate tools, not moral or anything otherwise. they cannot be used except by a human etc for a purpose (which is where the assignment of morality and the gun issue comes into play)

& gun control is not about the gun, it is about CONTROL
I notice you do not reference any science
don't mistake a quick post as final
see above
denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2015
you are delusional

I can read an academic paper. You can't. Get over it.

I think you're lieing about where you live. I'm going to figure that out too.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
here is something else to seriously consider WRT the data in the study as well:
from WISQARS reporting site
*New Restrictions for Reporting State-level Death Counts and Death Rates for 2008 and Later

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in an agreement with the National Association of Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) has implemented a new, more restrictive rule for reporting National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) state- and county-level death data for years 2008 and later, in order to avoid inadvertent disclosure of cases. Therefore, the Office of Statistics and Programming, NCIPC has modified WISQARS to accommodate the new data suppression rule; i.e., no figure, including totals, should be less than 10 in tabulations for sub-national geographic areas, regardless of the number of years combined with the 2008 and later data.
http://www.cdc.go...rts.html

get it?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2015
Note above that the WISQARS data pretty much says that any data showing 10 is likely not correct, BTW

I think you're lieing about where you live. I'm going to figure that out too.
[sic]
@dung
good luck

i could give you my address and you still couldn't come within 18 miles of my house
ROTFLMFAO

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
Are all of your statements scientific?


I have not been claiming to worship science like greenie does.

see us evolve as a species


That was the objective of the Eugenicists.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (22) Jul 08, 2015
"I can read an academic paper. You can't. Get over it."
----------------------------------

Is this the same guy who can do "quadratic equations", too?

As if we can't, . . .
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2015

Ask any law enforcement agency and you will likely hear the same thing: an armed populace is more likely to deter crime than a disarmed one



@Captain Stumpy:

If that were true, we would not see a more rapid decline in (violent) crime rates in those countries that have imposed tight restrictions on the private ownership of firearms - yet we do. Crime rates in such countries (including, but not limited to, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium [although the latter in more recent times as their strict gun-laws are fairly young], but also countries like Estonia, which has seen a decline of over 70% in violent crime since 1995) have decreased much faster than the rates in the US.

So your claim is simply not supported by the statistical evidence.
ThomasQuinn
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2015
Are all of your statements scientific?


I have not been claiming to worship science like greenie does.

see us evolve as a species


That was the objective of the Eugenicists.



You just can't discuss any subject without sinking to the pathetic depths of the reduction-ad-hitlerum, can you? I think you are the best argument in existence against taking Conservative hardliners seriously.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
If that were true, we would not see a more rapid decline in (violent) crime rates in those countries...
@ThomasQ
Ok, stop right there... you are comparing the flavour of apples to bowling balls, or worse.

This comment assumes every culture is the same, and if they were, then a+b=c... that is not the case. Take Japan and their highly strict cultural need to follow rules, for instance.

So, when you take comparisons between Estonia and Belgium and put them next to the USA, you can't truly compare them as they don't make sense without some HUGE qualifiers for cultural differences, which can be (and ARE) considerable in a lot of cases.

it also doesn't change the underlying FACT that the issue, especially in the USA, is not about guns, but violence

gun control is about control, not guns
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
pathetic depths of the reduction-ad-hitlerum,


I said nothing about Hitler.
The Eugenics movement was started by scientists who wanted to scientifically 'improve' humanity.

'Improve society', 'improve the human species' are repeatedly given as excuses to impose more state control over the lives of others.

Why are socialists so opposed to using limited state power to protect the lives, liberty and property of individuals? And by defending and protecting the individual, society and the species are saved, humanely.
Instead the socialist must use state power to compel, coerce people to live the way the socialist wants, to fulfill the socialist's vision for humanity. And those opposed are usually murdered, imprisoned, or marginalized.
The socialist proclaims his desire to 'save humanity' while destroying it.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
You are the one demanding my statement be scientific. While I may respect science - I have never claimed that every statement I make is scientific -

Yes, you asserted you base ALL your beliefs on science.
ALL is science, to you .

BTW, my reference to Capt. America had nothing to do with science. It was about the politics of Hydra to create chaos to convince people to give up their liberty for security.
Doesn't sound much like fiction after reading Rules for Radicals and observing the policies of the Obama regime.
Another great line from Marvel, 'with great power comes great responsibility'.

The 'liberal' society has done all it can to ignore responsibility and reward irresponsible behavior.
Banning firearms shifts responsibility away from individuals and adds more to police and the state. The state has stated police have no responsibility to protect your life. So who does?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
And nowhere have I suggested that I want to improve humanity.

You have, many times.
Why do you think it is that every time someone suggests that we should look to improve ourselves

But that is NOT what you are saying, to improve oneself.
You continuously say 'improve the species' or 'improve society' or ...NOT

being supportive of the hope that we can some day do better

There you go again with the 'we' crap.

I am not the one who attacks people of faith who hope they can improve themselves with their faith in God.
You are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (22) Jul 09, 2015
mention that the gun was stolen from a car in June. So why did the Yahoo article choose to omit this very important fact? Perhaps this was new information that was just released or perhaps it was just made up as an excuse
Ahaahaaaaa made up? By who? If you do a minimum of research you will see that it's not 'made up.'
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
I criticize things that I see as destructive.

Like socialism and the Regulatory State. Both of which you approve of.
There is much data to support the destructiveness of the state, and much data to support how an individual's faith in God has improved his life and much data to show how individuals with liberty and morality and create wealth and prosper.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
So when you don't like a particular piece of research - you can dismiss it as 'misinterpretation of evidence'.
@green
now, don't be putting words into my mouth and making claims about me, ok?
thanks

it has nothing to do with what i like or dislike. it has to do with VALIDATION and following the evidence. in a scientific manner. If you read the studies from BOTH camps, you will see that the only people "validating" the studies are all from the same camp. there is no cross studied data. therefore the extremists points of view from BOTH camps are simply saying "yes, my sh*t is true; theirs isn't"

therefore i ignore BOTH camps usually and follow the evidence directly from the source, which is usually down the middle, but also slightly in favour of the pro-gun argument.

as i stated before: the core problem has nothing to do with the gun itself.
the core problem is the cultural violence.
PERIOD
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
balance our own personal liberty, with the rights of everyone else - a tough needle to thread.

Not really.
It's pretty simple. Don't gang up on me for plunder and murder and I will leave you alone, too.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Your implication is that you have read all the research on the gun debate
@green
nope. but i have read a LOT from both camps
and that your personal interpretation of the evidence is correct - and their interpretation of the evidence is flawed
i have caught both camps lying about issues in the past (dont ask for details, i will not give them)

like i keep saying: until the CORE PROBLEM is addressed, there will always be a problem with access to any weapons, be it guns, knives, bow and arrow or anything else

the problem you are getting wrapped up in is that you feel justified in your defense of the gun control issue, but you also do NOT know about living conditions everywhere. I don't either, but i can truthfully state that i've seen far more various conditions than probably anyone on the site. what does that mean? nada... except it gives me insight to things you are not aware of. that's it.

just remember the core problem: VIOLENCE
(not guns)

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
and much data to support how an individual's faith in God has improved his life
@Rygg
if you are going to spout off about this, why not make sure that you include the facts, like the FACT that all serial offenders tend to be god-fearing converts from prison, where they are introduced to the loving spirit and forgiveness of xtianity (until, that is, they get freedom, when they simply revert back to their typical behaviour patterns)

IOW- skip the religious BS
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
it wouldn't let me "edit" my post... i wonder what is up with the system

EDIT to my last post:

make that "typically" all serial offenders.. as there are outliers in every crowd.

almost all serial killers and serial rapists, as well as serial offenders interviewed push that angle when trying for parole, etc
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
they get freedom, when they simply revert back to their typical behaviour patterns)

People lie to themselves and others all the time.

Why don't you blame the individual liar?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
"This year, 9,245 schoolchildren in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota participated; trap's so popular in Minnesota that the legislature appropriated $2 million for the expansion of gun ranges, where the kids compete. Next year, schools in Arizona, South Dakota, Illinois and Kansas will host teams. Middle-schoolers can also join high-school squads.

In June, Zac Olson and Andy Krebs of Lakeville South shot so well they advanced to the state tournament at the Minneapolis Gun Club. Their crew hit 464 targets out of a possible 500, claiming the first-place trophy as Minnesota champions."
http://www.bloomb...ew-sport
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2015
FACT that all serial offenders tend to be god-fearing converts from prison, where they are introduced to the loving spirit and forgiveness of xtianity


ALL?
Prisons are now turning out radical Muslims.
It was an atheist in prison who had a court rule atheism is a religion.
Your 'fact' is a bit squishy.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2015
Do you think I have the right to drive any speed that I want

Sure. One all roads you own.
We have decided to legislate safety in our cars.

Not 'we'.
The state.
But insurance companies began the push for car safety years ago and have created the IIHS.
ALL safety innovations coerced by the state were first implemented by the auto companies and prompted by insurance companies.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2015
Obama and others have expressed their envy for China's one party rule.

"China Orders 'Reeducation' for Catholic Priests and Nuns"http://www.breitb...nd-nuns/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
" Criminals will always have guns, this is not about them. Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. Humans have a right to defend themselves. If we didn't have the Second Amendment, we would create it.

…Get a gun, get legal, be responsible, trust yourself. Don't trust yourself? Then don't carry. But for God's sake then, shut the f**k up about it, because that's where your involvement ends."
http://www.breitb...my-life/
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2015
"But for God's sake then, shut the f**k up about it, because that's where your involvement ends."
---------------------------------

Until you are killed by a gun nut.
gkam
1 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2015
"it wouldn't let me "edit" my post... i wonder what is up with the system"
-----------------------------

Yeah, and my Ignore function flips on and off, at the same time.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
When only the police and military have guns: Schindler's List.

http://www.tpnn.c...ars-ago/
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2015
Do you really think your popgun is going to keep the government away?

The word for that is naiveté.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2015
Obama and others have expressed their envy for China's one party rule.

"China Orders 'Reeducation' for Catholic Priests and Nuns"http://www.breitb...nd-nuns/


You have sunk to new depths, even by your own bat-crap-crazy, despicably dishonest standards. Obama has done no such thing, and you know it. You are mentally ill, treasonous, and you have no sense of morality. You should be in a psychiatrical ward.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2015
If that were true, we would not see a more rapid decline in (violent) crime rates in those countries...
@ThomasQ
Ok, stop right there... you are comparing the flavour of apples to bowling balls, or worse.

This comment assumes every culture is the same, and if they were, then a+b=c...


Now I'm really disappointed in you, because you are engaging in weaseling and dishonest discussion. Really, you're better than that.

I quote:
Ask any law enforcement agency and you will likely hear the same thing: an armed populace is more likely to deter crime than a disarmed one


That is a general, sweeping statement. I point out that this general statement is not backed up by statistics from countries that have tightened their gun-laws, and suddenly you plead a very weird case of 'American exceptionalism' and cultural relativism. BTW: Estonia and Belgium - bigger difference than USA and UK/Belgium/Netherlands.

Gun control is about control AND about guns.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2015
The bottom line is this; In order to maintain freedom and liberty, society effectively accepts costs associated with doing so.

One should be suspicious of liberals reactionary agenda wrt gun control, because if guns are an issue requiring government regulation, then that logically opens the door to innumerable like "issues" that justifies attacking liberty.

For example, some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes,... some several hundred thousand people die each year on account of health problems related to obesity, ....:over hundred thousand people died in 2015 from smoking related illness, ....etc.

Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
In contrast, gun related violence does more to expose government failure, than it does to expose an issue with legal gun ownership,.... liberal gov regulating advocates make "the gun" the issue to hide that mentalities failure in dealing with gun violence.

Liberals, de Blasio are typically soft on criminals, apologists for gang violence (the bulk of non-suicide related gun deaths) and the deplorable criminal mind-set of a significant part of the minority community** , and don't like efforts that work like stop and frisk, but yet don't have a problem banning guns from law abiding citizens, nor enforcing immigration laws so we can filter out criminals ; this is classics confused liberal mush-headedness.

**the liberal ideology renders addressing this cultural issue a "racist" act, and would undermine the use of the "racism charge" as a political weapon.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
The greatest threat to personal liberty, is the liberal-progressive, the social engineer, and their army of statisticians. ©
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
Ask any law enforcement agency and you will likely hear the same thing: an armed populace is more likely to deter crime than a disarmed one


That is a general, sweeping statement. I point out that this general statement is not backed up by statistics


The point of statistics is to make general sweeping statements.

Statistics for counterfactual gun crimes do not exist.

States in the USA with the strictest gun laws have the highest gun related crime. This is because criminals, de facto, don't follow those laws,... only law abiding citizens do.

The issue is not the inanimate gun, it's liberalisms weakness on criminals.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2015
"The greatest threat to personal liberty, is the liberal-progressive, the social engineer, and their army of statisticians."
-------------------------------

Not the Conservative Police State?

Remember how you all got SO SCARED you sent our sons and daughters to become the killers of Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to us, and put us under the Government Police??

Paid for it yet?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2015
Your Dubya ruined any arguments of liberals and Big Government. HE put us into the World's Biggest Bad Debt, like Reagan did. He got our goobers SO SCARED, they imposed a Police State on us!

We used to be free to fly, but now go through the ridiculous nonsense of taking off our shoes. Good think they did not follow that policy with the underwear bomber!

Why are you folk SO SCARED? Is somebody going to take your "things"?
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2015
It's kinda of disingenuous to blame Bush when Your guy has been in office for six years,.... yet we still have to take our shoes off,.... yet he will have doubled the debt by time he leaves office, ....yet ISIS are allowed free reign to slaughter Iraqis, .... yet most top democrats voted approval for force in Iraq,...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2015
The Democrats let you kill those Iraqi civilians who had done nothing to us? That defense was tried at Nuremberg, and did not work.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2015
The USA did not target Iraqi civilians. That is a lie. The purpose of the Nuremberg trails was categorically NOT in seeking justice for collateral causalities of war. Another lie of association. Not that it is unexpected that a '60's left-wing pot-head would lie.

Saddam failed to abide by UN resolutions.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2015
We caused those deaths by our invasion and mass killings. I guess you "forgot" Fallujah, and White Phosphorus.

Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places immediately before the Bush/Cheney Mass Killings.

Republicans killed all those folk anyway, for the oil, but screwed it up.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places [... incoherent lies...]


He failed to abide by resolution 1441, which stipulated several requirements in addition to WMD disposal. Inspectors? Saddam routinely chased them away. In any case given the previous UN resolutions leading up to 1441, it was not the responsibility of the united nations to find WMD's,... rather it was the responsibility of Saddam to demonstrate the destruction of WMD's he, as a matter of historical and admitted fact, possessed.

Bush was not responsible for there being or not being wmd's in Iraq. Liberals could only have made the vacuous political charge of "Bush lied about wmd's" upon having invaded Iraq and found none.

The only mistake besides strategic errors, was in squandering the opportunity to establish a massive base in which to scare Iran into submission. Nuke talks aren't going so well are they?
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
"Bush was not responsible for there being or not being wmd's in Iraq."
--------------------------------

No, Saddam did that, just like he told us. You are probably unaware of the 1300-page report on the alleged "WMD!", sent to us by Saddam. It was censored here, but leaked in Europe, with the identities of who was cheating with Saddam's oil - TEXANS!!

Bush was responsible for lying us into that mass killing. Look up the Office of Special Plans and get back to me.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
It's conspiracy theory gibberish to suggest that the war in Iraq was for oil. It wasn't. The USA don't need oil from Iraq, as half of the oil consumed by the USA comes from the USA, and the bulk of the remaining oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada, with only a small amount even coming from the middle east, not Iraq.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
"Nuke talks aren't going so well are they?"
-----------------------------------

Well they are, actually. Much to your dismay, I think. You will not get to have another war soon.

Why do you folk get SO SCARED you have to send our sons and daughters to kill others for you? Why not go yourself?

SCARED??
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
You are probably unaware of the 1300-page report on the alleged "WMD!", sent to us by Saddam. It was censored here, but leaked in Europe, with the identities of who was cheating with Saddam's oil - TEXANS!!


Are you referring to the UN 'oil for food program'? If so, it only exposes corruption of the UN and Saddam. Oil was not made illegal by that program, Saddam just stole the profits and received kickbacks. It wasn't a policy of the USA.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
Look it up, Noum, and be embarrassed you were unaware of it before the invasion.

Did you look up the Office of Special Plans? That one is important, because it was the source of the misleading "information" used to fool you.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
"On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy." "
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
How many of you knew about Lt Col Kwiatkowski and the institution of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon?

How many of you knew about "Curveball", the admitted liar who told them what they wanted to hear, and now brags about helping to start the mass killings with his acts?

I did. Why didn't you?
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2015
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Lie. The general policy was set back from the time of Bush Sr and through the Clinton era spending millions to orchestrate a coup to rid Saddam. The "intelligence" was 5,000 Kurdish murdered and invasion of Kuwait.

Political attacks after the war are irrelevant. World opinion was that Saddam was a menace. Saddam failed to account for wmd's he had,... this as reported in resolution 1441 and the final report from the UN Security Council.

"the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security'...[.....].... '[Iraq] will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations'. - 1441
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places [... incoherent lies...]


He failed to abide by resolution 1441, which stipulated several requirements in addition to WMD disposal. Inspectors? Saddam routinely chased them away. In any case given the previous UN resolutions leading up to 1441, it was not the responsibility of the united nations to find WMD's,... rather it was the responsibility of Saddam to demonstrate the destruction of WMD's he, as a matter of historical and admitted fact, possessed.


The US did not have a UN mandate for the war. That is why so many countries refused to join you, unlike the Afghanistan case where there WAS a legal mandate. The Iraq war was an illegal offensive war, and the conservatives willingly and wittingly went into it illegally. Live with it.
ThomasQuinn
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
It's conspiracy theory gibberish to suggest that the war in Iraq was for oil. It wasn't. The USA don't need oil from Iraq, as half of the oil consumed by the USA comes from the USA, and the bulk of the remaining oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada, with only a small amount even coming from the middle east, not Iraq.


And I'm sure it was a mere coincidence that Cheney and numerous senior GOP guys made millions. It was a complete coincidence that Cheney's friends got lucrative contracts. It was pure coincidence that the sickening use of MERCENARIES (Blackwater) was employed, and that it profited senior GOP figures.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2015
" . . invasion of Kuwait."
------------------------
Thanks for bringing that up. Do you know Poppy Bush told Ambassador April Glaspie to tell Saddam it was okay to invade Kuwait? ("We have no opinion" over intra-arab politics). Are you aware all that changed when an alleged nurse in a Kuwaiti hospital addressed Congress with stories of Iraqis taking incubators and baby cribs and throwing the babies on the floor? It was the primary reason for Congress to be stampeded into the First Bush War.

Look up Hill and Knowlton and Kuwait, and find out the alleged "nurse" was the spoiled daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, lying under oath so the Emir could get his wealth back? Look it up.

You got taken!
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places [... incoherent lies...]


He failed to abide by resolution 1441, which stipulated several requirements in addition to WMD disposal. Inspectors? Saddam routinely chased them away. In any case given the previous UN resolutions leading up to 1441, it was not the responsibility of the united nations to find WMD's,...


The US did not have a UN mandate for the war. [....] unlike the Afghanistan case where there WAS a legal mandate.


Factually incorrect. The UN does not grant mandates for war,.... neither for Iraq nor for Afghanistan.

The Iraq war was an illegal offensive war, ....


Factually Incorrect. The UN Security Council has never ruled that the Iraq war was a illegal one,... this despite that they have the legal authority to do so, according to Article 39 of the UN Charter.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
It's conspiracy theory gibberish to suggest that the war in Iraq was for oil. It wasn't. The USA don't need oil from Iraq, as half of the oil consumed by the USA comes from the USA, and the bulk of the remaining oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada, with only a small amount even coming from the middle east, not Iraq.


And I'm sure it was a mere coincidence that Cheney and numerous senior GOP guys made millions. It was a complete coincidence that Cheney's friends got lucrative contracts. It was pure coincidence that the sickening use of MERCENARIES (Blackwater) was employed, .....


During WWII the entire country effectively turned into a munitions factory where some profited, so what? This of itself does not justify your motivational conspiracy theory.

The Iraq war was an illegal offensive war, and the conservatives willingly and wittingly went into it illegally

Funding approved by top democrats.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator [...] So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry, 2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program" -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2015
Look up Hill and Knowlton and Kuwait,....


I'm not going to waste my time researching individual accounts and political hacks to substantiate wacky conspiracy theories.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2015
"I'm not going to risk my ego researching grossly embarrassing facts" is what you mean.

I'll do it for you. What dodge will you use when I find the references?
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2015
"I'm not going to risk my ego researching grossly embarrassing facts" is what you mean.

I'll do it for you. What dodge will you use when I find the references?


No, I'm not going to do the work for you, nor do I have time to debate the internet. You told me more than once to "look it up", but failed to provide exactly what it is I'm supposed to look up, leaving me to guess.
ThomasQuinn
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2015
Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places [... incoherent lies...]


He failed to abide by resolution 1441, which stipulated several requirements in addition to WMD disposal. Inspectors? Saddam routinely chased them away. In any case given the previous UN resolutions leading up to 1441, it was not the responsibility of the united nations to find WMD's,...


The US did not have a UN mandate for the war. [....] unlike the Afghanistan case where there WAS a legal mandate.


Factually incorrect. The UN does not grant mandates for war,.... neither for Iraq nor for Afghanistan.

The Iraq war was an illegal offensive war, ....


Factually Incorrect. The UN Security Council has never ruled that the Iraq war was a illegal one,... this despite that they have the legal authority to do so, according to Article 39 of the UN Charter.


Utter BS
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015
Saddam did not fail to abide by those resolutions, which was reported by the Weapons Inspectors on the ground in those very places...


He failed to abide by resolution 1441, which stipulated several requirements in addition to WMD disposal. Inspectors? Saddam routinely chased them away. In any case given the previous UN resolutions leading up to 1441, it was not the responsibility of the united nations to find WMD's,...


The US did not have a UN mandate for the war. [....] unlike the Afghanistan case where there WAS a legal mandate.


Factually incorrect. The UN does not grant mandates for war,.... neither for Iraq nor for Afghanistan.

The Iraq war was an illegal offensive war,...


Factually Incorrect. The UN Security Council has never ruled that the Iraq war was a illegal one,... this despite that they have the legal authority to do so, according to Article 39 of the UN Charter.


Utter BS


Vague BS.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2015
"I am comfortable going forward [with military action in Syria] without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable," - Obama 2013

It was legally valid of Obama (Democrat) to take military action without a specific UN "mandate",.... just as it was for Bill Clinton (Democrat) with air strikes in Iraq in 1998 (operation dessert fox). The 2003 military action in Iraq is historically, a continuation of that event, which was continuation, historically, of the military response to Saddam invading Kuwait. The UN has not declared any of these military efforts to be "illegal",.... despite having the authority, responsibility, of doing so. Political opinions wrt legality aside.

"....I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization..." - Obama 2013

At least Bush (republican) sought authority from congress for use of force in Iraq.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2015
https://en.wikipe...ion_1386

The mandate for the Afghanistan War, which the UN supposedly "does not grant", according to the wise and all-knowing Noumenon.

The UN Security Council doesn't have to rule that the Iraq war was illegal (and the US would prevent it from doing so by means of a (threatened) veto anyway): a war is illegal if it does *not* have an explicit UN mandate, like resolution 1386, and the Iraq war didn't: resolution 1441 has universally been ruled, by many different groups specializing in international law, to not contain ANY substance that could remotely be construed as legitimizing the invasion.

You are just lying, as usual.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2015
I may be misinformed, but I am not lying.

The mandate for the Afghanistan War, which the UN supposedly "does not grant", according to the wise and all-knowing Noumenon.


The UN does not mandate war specifically,... it authorizes "force" or "by all means necessary" or a "International Security Assistance Force", etc. The entire purpose of establishing the UN was to make war obsolete.

"Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations"

The UN Security Council doesn't have to rule that the Iraq war was illegal [....] a war is illegal if it does *not* have an explicit UN mandate


If so, then on account of it's charter, it's obligated to make that declaration formal, of a member state. It has not done so wrt the Iraq war.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2015
resolution 1441 has universally been ruled, by many different groups specializing in international law, to not contain ANY substance that could remotely be construed as legitimizing the invasion.


And there are like sets of opinions countering the ones you site. The United Nations is acting authority for international law, and THEY did not declare the Iraq war of 2003 to be illegal.

As I mentioned above Clinton's (a democrat) air strikes in Iraq in 1998 did not receive specific UN mandated authorities either. The Clinton administrations (Democrat) arguments was that that effort was a historical continuum of the response from Iraq's annexation of Kuwait,.... so likewise is the military campaign just five years later,... with the same UN resolution trail.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015
"I am comfortable going forward [with military action in Syria] without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable," - Obama 2013

Would the UN have declared this an illegal act? It's obligated to do so, if it is illegal.

[Edit: Obama thought he has authority without seeking it from congress,... albeit he declared he would do so anyway]
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 12, 2015
Noum,. please go back to FreeRepublic. Your session is over.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.