- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I love facts. You can't argue with the numbers.
The latest PEW research shows a growing support for gun rights and greater rejection of further gun control laws. http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/g...
Regards,
O.A.
That would be the ethnic group that has the highest rate of imprisonment (per capita) in US jails.
Guess what ethic group is the majority group in 20% of those countries.
That would be the ethnic group that is the largest component of illegal immigrants in the US.
Guess what ethnic group is the majority group in 0% of those countries.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855617.h...
The one thing missing in this one is,
How many, or how few, of the murders in the USA are done with guns?
Thanks for the stats. Can't believe how hard this simple freedom polarizes people.
On the other hand, we have people who think about the issue, but many of them "don't want to get in trouble" and allow themselves to be confused on the basis of the issue. They make it too complicated.
If humans have a right to life, they have a right to defend their lives, using the best tools possible and available. that's it. Not even "the Second Amendment says...." Don't even confuse the issue by going there.
Right to Life > right to self-defense > firearms
I have no more patience for trying to persuade people, or "bring them to the right side". I am willing to present the simple argument. once.
and then, because I know those who are not with us, are against us, I will at least have a clear enemies list.
Then if they are engaged, you have the gay people don't kill other people discussion. Why no, they don't, but sports cars and alcohol kill a lot, when they are misused. Should we outlaw these too?
The center you are referring to is the center of the left. The center of political discourse in the USA used to be the Constitution until Hillary usurped that job too.
Taking things out of context really doesn't work. For either side.
I read the second amendment and couldn't find the part that guaranteed citizens zippo. It does mention protecting the States.
Don't think I referred to "center".
While it is nice that you don't read the second amendment to not infringe individual freedom to bear arms, SCOTUS does.
"The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense."
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amend...
If you need to understand this within context (think that was your idea), read the third and fourth amendments. Coming right after the second, it is quite clear what the intention the founders had the rights protected by the second amendment, and it is not a state militia or hunting.
Apparently they don't have any arguments beyond the sophistry that this presentation debunks because all they do is downvote posts supporting gun rights instead of explaining their position.
BTW, I am about 2/3 done with Red Mars.
Do you like Red Mars? I happened upon it in the library ten years ago. If the politics in Red Mars bother you, you might like As It Is on Mars. In that one they spend most of the book working their tails off in that book, making it tough sledding, but there is payoff at the end and in the next book when people become envious of their success and try to steal from them.
As I recall, Red Mars moves faster at the end, so it's worth sticking through.
The utopian plan discussions of the book are not my cup of tea, but I can accept a little dreaming from the author if they entertain me with the storyline. I like the detailed geology (or correct word for the extraterrestrial version). The author seems to have used a technology-version of historical fiction. I like that part. Someone on Amazon voted it down as only understandable to a geologist. Funny, and inspired me to like it to prove my science-mettle. My brother is the chief mechanical eng at NASA-KSC, and we talked recently about some of the technical aspects. The author did a good job. The storyline is a little unbelievable. These few people so influential on another planet? Do see that. But entertaining so far.
"Arm all of the fetuses!"
.... sorry... :)
On the other hand their are rights championed which don't appear anywhere in the document. They seem to get more milage than the one's that are set down pen and ink.
Someone posted this or something very similar a few months ago, and it's worth reposting.
I know the title is based on a movie, but this is the reference I think of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhG-vLZr...
control freaks want is that the good guys will NOT
have guns. . it's like denying the fire department
water -- stupid. -- j
The left pushes gun control, the right pushes gun rights.
That is exactly why it serves as a political wedge issue.
Therefore partisan references on this issue are not valueless.
In the case of guns, the right pushes gun rights while voting for controls. Effectively also supporting gun control, but not as tightly. Both sides then spout that thin difference as a wedge issue to demonize the other.
In any case both sides support control, of everything, not just guns. They parse minor differences and claim they are opposite positions.
Yes. People control.