With the recent attack at that Florida high school, we are once again inundated with all manner of tired and useless suggestions about how to prevent the next one, all dealing with denying law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. While these tragic events also compel facts and truths gun-grabbing, gun control advocates continue to ignore...if they ever take the time to actually research them in the first place...it is incumbent upon rational, honest people to re-iterate those truths and facts every time. With that in mind, I intend to post as many arguments for reason as is necessary in order to have them all aired in one place. I will endeavor to support each one with links to evidence and facts that justify the positions I will put forth.
To begin, I wish to state my personal opinion on the issue of gun rights. It begins with the United States Constitution. This document is a restriction on government...specifically the federal government...and it acknowledges rights we already possess by virtue of the fact that we exist at all. So, we don't possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because the federal government bestows those rights upon us. We were born with those rights already a part of us in the same way we were born with two arms. Government is obliged to respect those rights and the Constitution is the law that imposes that obligation by restricting the government from infringing upon those rights.
The 2nd Amendment, then, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose, primarily, of defending ourselves against the government, as well as for personal defense against all else. Hunting and sport shooting was of no concern when crafting the 2nd Amendment. With that in mind, where's the sense in allowing the government (federal, state or municipal) to dictate whether or not I own a firearm, when and where I can carry one and what type f firearm I choose for the purpose? The Constitution considers government the threat...the "bad guy" in this equation...and yet we decide that the potential oppressor gets to dictate to those it seeks to oppress how to deal with the oppression to be inflicted. It's really insanity.
Thus, my position is that it is absolutely none of the government's business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is, how many I own and whether or not I can carry it openly or concealed on my person. They have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of that so long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and that includes actual "military grade" weaponry, such as fully automatic weapons.
Oh, my! He didn't just say that, did he? Is he nuts?
No. I'm quite sane so far as anyone honestly can say. Back in the day, when our nation was still pulling up its Pampers, all "military grade" weapons were produced privately, not by the government. This was true well into the 19th century. Even the Gatling gun was invented and produced privately and sold first to railroads (along with some others) to control striking workers. The Army got them later.
More importantly, the founders recognized that the able-bodied, law-abiding citizens...also known as "the militia"...needed to have weapons capable of fending off a rogue government. This means that were Thompson Sub-machine Guns available at that time, the people would likely have had them first, and the founders would have been totally cool with it. The concept is a simple one: how does one keep the bully (despotic governments) at bay while giving the bully all the superior firepower?
(Before going any further, I wish to insist that I can provide links with supporting evidence for all I say and believe, and will do so in later posts on this subject as needed. Right now, I'm merely laying down a premise.)
Even the founders can be noted supporting these concepts. They were inspired by an Italian guy named Cesare Beccaria, from his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, whence comes the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
"A Principle source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of know means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons."
This moral has been manifested repeatedly with regard to self-protection...or the lack thereof, and we've seen it with all of these school shootings where the unarmed are at the mercy of the armed. But the poor thinkers believe that new laws can make a difference, as if the many laws already on the books on any number of behaviors has ever prevented someone from engaging in those behaviors.
No, the laws that people are seeking...those people who want the government to "do something"...are definitively, distinctly and by definition those that are examples of our inherent right to own and bear arms.
The problem is not now, nor has it ever been guns. It is the character of people. It is the absolutely insane idea of posting for all to see the message that those within are totally and absolutely unprotected because they inhabit a "gun free zone". It is the unwillingness to accept the reality of the existence of evil in the world (unless they want to apply the word to Republicans or Christians) and the ongoing struggle between it and goodness. It is the rejection of the notion that a God exists and is waiting to judge us for our sins. But it is not guns.
That's all for now. More to come in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
357 comments:
1 – 200 of 357 Newer› Newest»Preach it! So much ignorance and/or malice from the Left on this - either not knowing the arguments or deliberately misstating them to justify gun-grabbing.
Ignorance and malice:
NRA spox: 'Many in legacy media love mass shootings‘
“Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it," Dana Loesch said Thursday. "Now I'm not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media in the back (of the room)."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/dana-loesch-cpac-media/index.html
Idiocy and malice.
“GOP congresswoman: Many mass murderers ‘end up being Democrats’”
https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/gop-congresswoman-many-mass-murderers-end-up-being-democrats/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
Here is Trump now wanting to restrict guns to those of at least 21 yrs old. The reasoning is insane. An 18-yr-old can buy a rifle but not a pistol -- he should be able to buy both. He is an adult. He can vote, he can go to war. It is totally arbitrary to limit things to adults who have reached a certain age. What's next -- only those 25 and older? 30?
The problem is that we raise our children to stay children even when they are young adults in their "teen" years. We used to raise them to be adults so that they were marrying and raising family at 16 for guys and 14 for women. They do indeed have the capacity for maturity at those ages if they are taught right instead of putting then into government baby-sitting indoctrination centers. It's those centers which leads them to be mass murderers and any weapon can be used, just as we've seen a van killing dozens of people with one swipe!
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/13-ways-public-schools-incubate-mental-instability-kids/
feo,
This post is not about abortion, a practice you favor as the false christian you are.
Loesch's point is spot on. The media seeks out grieving parents for ratings, and to drive an agenda through emotional appeals, knowing that the ignorant, low-info leftists are easily manipulated by doing so. Intelligent people don't need to be reminded that loving people lament the deaths of family and friends and innocent people in general. Highlighting such expressions of sorrow does nothing to move the discussion toward workable solutions that protect the targets of murderers. It's cheap, insulting and deceitful...which works well for false priests.
In typical fashion, the NYP provided no context for the remarks of the congresswoman, and as such as well as despite such, it is totally irrelevant what one person supposedly said. However, I'm willing to wager that few, if any, mass murderers are conservative Republicans.
The Reagan comments is simply more evidence of your idiocy and/or deceitfulness. Anyone can be ambushed, as Reagan was, just as professional pugilists can be sucker punched. But you're not above exposing your own stupidity in your ongoing effort to try to convince people you're not the idiot you've solidly proven yourself to be.
Glenn,
The Federalist article to which you linked has some very good points about the pressures kids face throughout the K-12 years, though I disagree that the punishment point is properly listed among the causes of their mental/emotional distresses. The type of punishment to which it refers is the result of how those distresses manifest, together with the restrictions put upon the schools with regard to how they can handle problem kids. Otherwise, a good article.
Slavery is inscribed in the very first article of the Constitution. Clear moral conviction erased it from our land. But it took time for white people to cease our brutality.
The same is going to happen for assault weapons that you lie and deceive yourself is protected by an amendment..
"I’m not surprised that you are unmoved by the pleas of teenagers who faced a man firing away at them with a semi-automatic assault rifle."
Didn't so much as hint as such a thing. Thanks so much for proving once again that you're an inveterate liar.
"You are a coward, gutless, an amoral worm..."
Sticks and stones, loser.
"Slavery is inscribed in the very first article of the Constitution."
No it isn't, but thanks so much for proving once again that you're an inveterate liar.
"The same is going to happen for assault weapons that you lie and deceive yourself is protected by an amendment."
No lie, liar...which means you just proved once again that you're an inveterate liar.
"You collude with the killing of our children."
Not so, but thanks for continuing to prove you're an inveterate liar. We really don't need any more proof, but we appreciate the courtesy of the reminder. You're a pip.
However, it wasn't me who insisted on herding our kids into buildings and putting targets on their backs by proclaiming their schools as "gun free zones". That was asshats like you who did that. Why not save time and just nuke the place as soon as the first bell? After all, you don't care about the kids at all. You just care about demonizing those with whom you agree and against whom you haven't an intelligent thought.
Keep bringing the stupid, feo. I love comedy.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
“Clause 3. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons....”
The 13th amendment banning slavery struck the 3/5 compromise from our laws.
You fucking idiot.
________
The “good guy with a gun” couldn’t face the Parkland shioter’s firepower. So much for your stupidity.
Very classy for a guy who claims to be Christian.
The 3/5 clause doesn't "inscribe" slavery, as if it welcomes it. It mitigates it...makes it weaker.
If you're referring to that cop who didn't enter the school while the shooting was happening, that dude does NOT indicate stupidity on the part of those who support armed personnel IN the school. It does, however, indicate a ton of stupid on YOUR part for making that suggestion. Being a cop, even a cop with a gun, doesn't guarantee courage in the face of lethal danger. No one knows how they will react in such situations.
In the meantime, a brave coach working as a school security guard did display such courage and saved some lives by sacrificing his own because turd-brained and worthless losers like yourself denied him a pistol.
And you dare refer to anyone as an idiot. Again, keep bringing the stupid, feo. All that education...all those books...not one shred of wisdom. You're so sad and pathetic.
I’m ready to arm librarians. And Starbucks baristas. And lifeguards. And Yankees ticket takers.
Can’t harden just one target. Got to harden them all.
“The 3/5 clause doesn't "inscribe" slavery, as if it welcomes it. It mitigates it...makes it weaker.”
You’re quoting slaves, aren’t you? I can tell. Their sense of getting some relief is vey well known in all accounts.
You’re fucking inhuman.
I prefer to allow citizens to arm themselves if they so choose as the 2nd Amendment protection allows them to do. You, however, are free to remain open to attack if you so choose. You have the right to take whatever chances with your own life as you see fit in your particular stupidity. And that's the way it's supposed to be. But as we know, bullies and despots are only bullies and despots because they can get away with it. They feel no threat against their desire to bully and oppress. Should they feel threatened, they back off because they're cowards. So we don't need to force people to arm up as you're suggesting. Merely the fear that the next target can fight back...might be armed...would be enough. Japan understood in the '40s. You're too stupid.
As to the 3/5ths clause, those who are really educated (instead of just claiming they are...like you) know that without that clause, the south would have had more representation allowing them to perpetuate their slave culture for far longer than it was able with the clause limiting their representation. So despite your idiotic attempt to pretend that slaves didn't benefit by the clause, the reality is that it most certainly did, even if they didn't feel it personally at the time. I'm sure Frederick Douglas, someone who actually cared about the plight of black slaves, rather than just exploiting them as you're doing now, understood the benefit of that clause.
You're satanic.
What kind of unloving parents did you have?
Feo,
You parrot the LEFTISTs -- you don't know what an "assault rifle" is. IT is a rifle capable of fully automatic fire, none of which are in civilian hands. What you are afraid of is a scary-looking gun. Did you know you can take away all the AR-15 style rifles and there will still be Mini-14s which have the EXACT SAME CAPABILITY and fire the EXACT SAME ROUND! But it's called a "ranch rifle" by Ruger so stupid people like you don't know that it isn't the gun that is the problem.
Or that a 12 gauge shotgun would have put more projectiles down range with many fewer rounds. Or that a 9mm pistol would have allowed the shooter to carry more rounds as well.
Clearly Feo and Dan’s ignorance makes these discussions difficult.
As a side topic, any thoughts on whether public school students who stage walkouts from class over the gun issue should be punished for doing so?
~ Hiram
"You like giving assault rifles to crazy people. Children getting shot up is a thrill to you, like a game. Another life you’d be mass murderer"
Wow! You are really, really good at bringing the stupid! Do you get paid for that? What in anything I've said (or Craig has said) that suggests any of the above? Nothing of course and there's nothing you could find that does. You're either incredibly stupid or a liar. I'm going with both.
"What kind of unloving parents did you have?"
The kind that didn't love lying and stupidity. That kind.
Hiram, I fail to see why students should be excused from the consequences of missing class. Clearly, there is ample opportunity for students to demonstrate during times of the day when they are not legally required to be in a classroom . I would suggest that if the school district policy is regarding missing class for on authorized reasons should be applied consistently to everyone.
Craig, what a fucked up idiot you are. Tens of thousands of people walk around with shit in their bodies. Can you give me the number walking around with .223 Remington rounds in their bodies?
None of you want to save lives. The slaughter of children is the greatest threat to your sold out values for gutter politics.
And Feo, is in with more non sequiters and foolishness.
Yes, I think all children should die. What s rational position to suggest that I have.
I’d be glad to, if only you hadn’t spent endless comments dodging my questions elsewhere. But, I see no reason that you’d expect someone else to do what you won’t.
Arm the teachers! And the watch as first responders cut them down.
Texas Police Mistakenly Shoot Man Who Took Gun From Suspect
“AMARILLO, Texas — A Texas Panhandle shelter worker who wrestled a gun away from a man holding hostages was then shot by a police officer who mistook him as the suspect.
Amarillo police say they received a report Wednesday of a man holding dozens hostage in the chapel of Faith City Mission, a shelter serving the indigent and others.
An officer confronted a man inside holding a gun and shot him. Police say the investigation revealed the man who was mistakenly shot had moments earlier fought with the gunman and took away his weapon.”
Craig would love to, but he can’t. His bone spurs keep him from thinking straight.
For something to whom thinking straight is a only an aspiration that’s pretty amusing.
Let’s take guns away from the police, all law abiding citizens, open the borders, and see what the sanctuary cities look like then.
Hiram,,
I agree with Craig regarding your question. There are many ways students can make their opinions heard without missing classes to do it. If word was out that a walk-out was planned, and the school warned against doing so, then even more so punishment is appropriate and should be expected. Most school policy, however, prohibits unjustified absence.
Speaking of absence, intelligence, relevance and Christian kindness continues to be absent in the comments of feo the false priest. He continues to prove he is no Christian at all.
That cops mistakenly shoot the wrong guy now and then does not mitigate the sense and need for armed personnel in schools to protect our kids. feo can't help but pretend human error is a reason as he has no real argument against it other than his own anti-American, anti-human rights, anti-life hatefulness. This buffoon pretends we do not value the lives of our kids, yet it is idiocy such as that which routinely emanates from his own addles and wisdom-free mind that has put kids in the cross-hairs of crazed killers. And he dares call anyone else and idiot. He's far worse. He's among the many who are responsible for the decay of our culture and society.
You guys live the bloody gore. Here you go (Craig! Do not look! It’s full of facts.)
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first victims of a mass shooting the Florida radiologist had seen—but their wounds were radically different
“A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out-of-the-ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low velocity handgun injuries as those I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived...
n a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/
More young people to hate:
Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Henry Lee III, 20
John Trumbull, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
John Marshall, 20
Nathan Hale, 21
Banastre Tarleton, 21
Alexander Hamilton, 21**
Benjamin Tallmadge, 22
Robert Townsend, 22
George Rodgers Clark, 23
David Humphreys, 23
Gouveneur Morris, 24
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25
John Paul Jones, 28
In 1776.
You shouldn't hate those young people who fought so you could abuse your free speech right in order to so routinely puke out stupidity.
If an object of small size is travelling at great speed, it is less likely to deflect, not more, and pass straight through. I suspect your ER tech is confused or a gun control liar like you.
Wow, Feo was able to google search AND copy/paste something that he believes might hide his ignorance.
I’d ask which specific round he’s referring to, but he won’t understand why that’s a thing.
The first thing that came to mind were stories we used to hear of small, generally harmless things, like straw stuck into trees or the sides of houses after a tornado. The speed at which they were traveling allegedly was enough for this to occur. But while this has never been proven to have actually happened, the guys on "Myth Busters" ruled the possibility "plausible" after shooting a piece of straw about a quarter inch into a palm tree out of an air gun, which propelled it at a speed greater than the typical tornado.
I present this to illustrate the point if feo's radiologist isn't just a gun grabbing hack, his tale makes no sense. If a tree can't deflect a high velocity piece of straw, how can human tissue and internal organs impede the trajectory of a .223 round of ammo from a rifle said to be of higher velocity than that of other guns with which he claims to have any experience? If the damage in Parkland victims is as he claimed, there certainly are other factors that could account for it.
Of course, the level of damage inflicted is irrelevant to any discussion about gun rights OR protecting students.
It’s horrifying funny to see you guys try to think. Horrifyingly dad to see how neither of get anything that is sensible, much less humane.
Cavitation, Marshall, is your answer. Speed, Craig, is your answer, not caliber. Speed causes cavitation. But you idiots are committed liars.”, anyway. You haven’t paid attention to answers for years. Clearly didn’t read the rest of the article: you both have to avoid answer at all costs. The setting free kind of truth will hurt tear you both enormously, tearing out all that guilt.
“I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.”
Once again, Feo’s ignorance shows. The speed v. caliber debate has been going on for decades and it isn’t nearly as cut and dried as Feo would like it to be. It’s a desire for a simplistic answer to a complex problem and a knee jerk preference for more government control and less individual freedom.
But at least his google skills give him the illusion of knowledge. But, throwing out big words always helps.
Clearly the source, is unaware that a “direct hit” from an AR-15 is unlikely to cause much more than a bruise, it’s hard to propel an unaerodynamic 8 pound object fast enough to reach the liver.
Feo's ER person probably doesn't really exist, but is made up fake news.
Otherwise he would be so full of crap as to stink like a toilet. It demonstrates more ignorance about guns a bullets so endemic with the LEFT.
Craig ignores doctors, ignores physics, ignores science altogether in an attempt to try to say it is just opinion and agenda (all moves that form the old strategy of a non rational political agenda).
Craig just gave a concise illustration of the dumbing down of America and all of you people who've sold your values to preserve a idiot's pride in whiteness.
By the way, as far as I know a .45ACP round fired from close quarters makes one heck of a lot bigger hole going in and coming out that will a .223 round. And of course a bigger hole leads to more internal damage.
Of course, I’ve done absolutely nothing of the sort. It’s just easier to avoid and deflect having to show oneself to be ignorant on a particular subject.
The problem Feo has is, conflating the round with the weapon firing the round undercuts his appeal “science”.
So Feo has no problem with guns, it's just the one type of round he's against!
Craig thinks caliber makes the difference between a slingshot and a shoulder fired missile.
And Glenn gets everything backwards, again.
No, I did not read the article when you first presented it. Aside from time constraints at the time, I was also considering past history. You, feo, have a history of providing that which contain blatant errors, is wholly irrelevant to the topic on the table or is completely misunderstood by you. This article turns out to be one of irrelevance, even after I've spent time doing some research. In addition, clarity could have reduced my personal confusion of your intentions had you been more direct. Getting right to the point regarding cavitation would've done wonders in that regard, especially since that IS the point of the article's author.
Yet, my last statement still stands. The particular degree of damage inflicted by a weapon is irrelevant to the right to bear arms or the issue of how to protect kids in their schools. The issue with the Florida case is both another person who shouldn't have a firearm having one as well as the fact that kids are once again the chosen targets because they are completely defenseless thanks to bad policies people like you chose to implement.
You pretend to care more. Your proposals continue to endanger them more. That's the reality YOU ignore in another failed attempt to convince yourself that you know how to think.
Clearly it’s more important for Feo to hide his ignorance behind ridicule than to attempt an actual conversation.
If Feo’s speculation that velocity is the defining factor in damage is correct, then why choose (assuming.223 Rem), such a relatively slow cartridge?
It's simply a way to justify banning AR-15s, as if most, if not all rifles offer higher velocity compared to handguns. By their very nature, rifles must possess higher velocity since they are long range weapons. So the comprison of the damaging effects of the AR-15 versus handguns in his article is no more than the typical deception of the gun grabber. The end game is still denying 2nd Amendment rights as if doing so will protect the innocent.
That should've been, "as if not all rifles 'DON'T' offer higher velocity."
Yet, there are faster rifle cartridges. If this is as simplistic and one dimensional as Feo seems to think (it’s all about velocity), then banning a type of rifle is absurd. But in his google and copy/paste world that’s just too much nuance.
I need to state before going further that I did indeed finally learn something from a feo comment that was not connected to his lack of intelligence, wisdom, honesty or overall absence of Christian character. It led me to learn more about the effect of various weapons on the human body, which makes for better weapon selection. This "education" did not come without evidence of his aforementionex numerous and blatantly obvious character flaws, and of course he couldn't resist a chance to pretend racism is involved with...something. That's what liars do. But I do indeed appreciate learning something after all this time. I've marked my calendar and everything.
Since 2002, Americans with guns have killed 10,000 times more Americans in this country than have terrorists. 10,000 times more.
What did we do on 9/12/2001 in response to 3,000 Americans killed? Planes didn’t fly for a few days. When they did, a US Marshall was on every flight until that plane’s door was refitted with bullet-proof locked doors. We created an entire new branch of the Federal government, most of whom stood at the gates and made sure we took off our shoes and belt, emptied our pockets and walked through a metal detector.
And lately our government has attempted a ban of travel to the US from select nations.
What do we do about the 35,000 American gun deaths every year?
In the 17 years since 9/11, Muslim extremists have murdered something like 54 Americans.
Americans, almost all of them Christian, have murdered something like 525,000 of themselves and each other.
You assholes find it very American to allow massive killing of Americans by Americans. So American that a foreign Muslim killing one American is abhorent. But Americans killing 10,000 Americans, well, that’s our rights!
The only asshole here is Feo. How about telling us where all those gun deaths were? A huge number are suicides and the vast majority of the leftover are gang banging. Try giving us some numbers of actual crimes committed with guns and compare the numbers to those killed with bombs, knives, etc.
There is no such thing as a "Muslim extremist." Muslim theology/ideology is the subjugation of the world by murdering those who refuse to bow to Islam.
Tell me where your 525,000 murder numbers came from.
"When they did, a US Marshall was on every flight until that plane’s door was refitted with bullet-proof locked doors. We created an entire new branch of the Federal government, most of whom stood at the gates and made sure we took off our shoes and belt, emptied our pockets and walked through a metal detector."
Not much different from what intelligent people expect should be done in our schools. Thanks for supporting REAL common sense policy, even if you're too stupid to realize you just did that.
You also continue to pretend there's some disconnect between our situation in this country and preventing terrorists from entering the country. One would think that people who pretend to care, people like you, would see the wisdom of preventing entry to those who are known to have a radically different view of human life from adding to a problem we already have with our own citizens in the inner cities who have that very same view. It has been said that if we eliminate gang-related activity, our murder rate is no worse, and in many cases far better, than other nations. But you're too busy falsely accusing people of racism to bother with those realities.
There are 87,000 flights a day. No one flies every day. No on flies every other day. How many people even take 30 flights a year? Less than 1%. Less than 0.5%.
There 120,00 schools in the US, open for 220 days a year. Every child from 1st grade to Senior High averages at least 210+ days of school a year.
Marshall likes the thought of stripping every American school student - and stripping a million teachers PLUS staff across all the land - of their shoes and belts, emptying their pockets of all possessions, and feeding them one by one through metal detectors...
... 210 times a year...
... at 120,000 sites.
Ten security people with five super-security detectors at 120,000 sites.
And tax dollars pay for that.
All so you can own an assault rifle.
Marshall is fucked up inside.
That’s 50 million young Americans each of who is to be stripped down and walked through metal detector 210 times a year.
I fly three times a year.
Insane, twisted, and stupendously ignorant, Marshall. Not to mention not even close to living in the real world.
Ban assault weapons. Treat shotguns, single action rifles, and handguns like cars. Three fee based hurdles: license every five years, registration at every point of sale, insurance every year.
I love how Feo trots our stats when he thinks it helps, but resorts to attacks when other stats come out. Gun violence goes down, while gun ownership goes up. Lumping suicides by gun, in with gangbangers shooting rival drug dealers. Well over 99% of guns and gun owners are law abiding citizens, so let’s lump them in with the .000025% (or whatever).
Assault weapons aren’t really a thing.
There are virtually no single action rifles
But, let’s let Feo make gun policy from ignorance. At least Dan claims to want to look at ALL of the data and not act in a knee jerk emotional manner.
When you lie so easily, Craig, you can lie yourself right out of feeling the loss of ten 9/11s a year.
You’re a peach.
Mass shooting have only gotten more deadly - that means a higher body count, Craig - and more frequent over the last twenty-five years.
Happy hunting with your assault weapon.
I don't see where I've suggested any specific plan. I've been in schools with metal detectors.
The 2nd Amendment is very specific and there are enough honest and intelligent people who can explain it to you. If you think you have fabulous idea for a better amendment thst will constitutionally allow for banning firearms, put it down on paper, submit it to your Congessional reps, see if they can get 2/3 of both Houses to agree and then see if 3/4 of the states will agree, and voila! You can have your gun ban. Of course, it won't prevent nutjobs from murdering lots of people by other means, but at least you can pretend you've done something while schools continue to be targeted.
Mass shootings, particularly school shootings, have gone up since Dems instituted "gun free zones".
It’s so comforting to know that Feo reverts to his usual mode of personal attacks and making stuff up. Anything to move away from his continuing to show his ignorance and tax his google skills.
Muslims were America's top mass shooters in last 2 out of 3 years
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/02/muslims-were-americas-top-mass-shooters.html
But we're "Islamaphobes" if we point this out.
What was openly laughable to everyone in the 70s except brutal white supremacists is now what the three of you swallow. Making each of you... brutal white supremacists.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/archie-bunker-gun-control_us_5a9659f6e4b0e6a523029b72
Yes, it’s eadier to call names that be substantive, we understand that.
Oh, except it’s not really that similar at all.
Glenn, Americans who kill themselves (by far the majority of whom are white) are still Americans. Just as much as the large majority of white folks in opioid addiction. So, too all those who by fate are born in neighborhoods of poverty and gang control are just as American as you are. They are your neighbors.
Here is a story told by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I hope it leads you to decide to become his disciple.
Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii,[k] gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Feo,
So you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens so that suicidal people won't use a gun??? Okay, they'll use a knife to slit their wrists, drive into a barrier, or jump off a bridge. What a stupid reason to outlaw guns. You also want to take away our guns because of gang crime, as if they won't get them illegally. You continue to demonstrate your abject stupidity.
Thanks for proving how you can twist a Bible passage to make it about gun control. what an ass.
No one here, except YOU, feo, is suggesting that even gang-bangers aren't Americans. No one here, except YOU, feo, is suggesting anything with regard to racial make-up of anyone. We're talking about people with bad character (including you, of course) using guns to murder, and how to prevent them from murdering innocents trapped in "gun free zones". You defend people with bad character because of their race. We indict them because of their character. There was this guy some years ago...oh, what was his name???? OH YEAH!!! The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who hoped for a day when all people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. You should google this guy and read all about him. In the meantime, know that your character is without question proven to be quite low, racist, dishonest and very much like one who hates God. So sad and pathetic.
What we are suggesting is that linking someone who commits suicide, someone who died something accidental, and two crack dealers fighting over turf in a way that makes inanimate objects the problem is intellectually dishonest.
Which is why Feo is so excited to do so.
I wonder, Craig, not vet hopefully, if you could use two brain cells and make a list of the inanimate objects we regulate, insure, and license that can kill people. And then recoginize - now this going to exceed your capacity - that the answe lies only in adding weaponry to that list: with enforcement, as opposed to current teethless federal law.
You may have to sit down to use an additional cell.
Feo,
Your ignorance is so telling. Nothing else in you list is guaranteed as a right in the Constitution.
No one is denying any right in the Constitution, except slavery, white men keeping the vote to themselves, putting a soldier in your home whenever, and letting the Presidential runner up be Vice President.
I’m very tired of your sinful lying, Glenn. I don’t know how you go on eating lies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You haven’t written anything true in years.
Feo,
You bear false witness by saying I am lying. You are a fool. Prove just one thing that I've lied about.
The Constitution never gave a right to slavery.
Gun ownership is not limited by type in the Constitution.
And if you won’t bother to round up your brain cells to do anything but change the subject, I find it difficult to understand why any of us would give serious consideration to anything you ask.
I simply find your obsession with banning in animate object’s, and regulating the choices of law abiding citizens quite strange. Apparently pro-choice is only good when it comes to exterminating children with down syndrome.
Of course, the fact that I have actually come out publicly and indicated a willingness to consider him some changes in regulating firearms doesn’t stop you from parading your ignorance.
Glenn, it is so tiring to deal with your habitual lying. Just to make a short list seems an unnecessary burden because you are so steeped in a life of cowardice that no list will change you.
Just going backwards from your latest comment, lie
Your lie #1 "You bear false witness by saying I am lying." Observe the following lies:
Your lie # 2 "You are a fool." Clearly not; observe the following demonstrations of your lies:
Your lie #3 The 3/5ths clause legitimated slavery in Article 1 of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court - the final arbiter of Constitutional law - in its 1857 Dred Scott decision decided that no black person, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. Thus, the Constitution was seen by the Supreme Court as protecting slavery. Abolishing it, therefore, required a Constitutional amendment to the Constitution: the 14th. Only amendments can change the Constitution - as the examples I pointed out to you in my previous comment.
[The truth of item 3 demonstrates your lies in items 1 and 2: that I am not the one lying, you are; and a fool could not provide the facts as I did of the case that it is you that lies.]
Your lie #4 "Nothing else in you list is guaranteed as a right in the Constitution." Voting is a right that is regulated. Alcohol is a right that is regulated. (21st amendment.) The billeting of soldiers in peacetime. Being a muslim. The right not to be treated with cruel and inhuman punishment. The right to not be obliged to excessive bail. The right not to be enslaved. The right not to be put into involuntary servitude.
Your lie #5 (which you repeat ad nauseam): "So you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens" Nope. You can keep your shotguns and pistols... if you buy them from a licensed dealer, register them every five years, and insure them every year.
Enough. You're stupid; you're a habitual liar. You've perverted your faith. 5 lies in three comments is enough evidence for a person who can hold a thought in their head.
Craig, I'm following up on your comments. That's not changing the subject. It's called teaching. You make a claim that an inanimate object cannot be blamed. I'm fine with that. But you infer that, therefore, regulating the inanimate object is senseless. And there you demonstrate that you cannot think through what you say, because you are an idiot, an idiot even with your own words.
Regulating objects that can cause - or prevent - fatalities in self and others if abused is what healthy societies do.
Like regulating seat belts.
Like fireworks.
Like lead paint.
There are 3 easy ones. Why don't you add 3 more and then I'll add 3 more.
Let's see how long the list is if just you and I give quick thought to it.
Or are you already stumped?
Feobore,
It is not a lie to call you a fool; you have proved too often that that is what you are.
The Constitution does not make slavery a right — please show me where it says that. Acknowledging there IS slavery and coming up with a plan prevent slave owners (virtually all Demokrats) to take over the nation is not making slavery a right. A SCOTUS erroneous decision also does not prove that slavery is/was a right— SCOTUS often make decisions based on personal agenda rather than Constitutional law. After all, a LEFTIST SCOTUS court somehow found the right to abortion in the Constitution, but they couldn’t cite where, so they said it was in a “penumbra” of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment didn’t change what the Constitution said, rather it just gave rights that should have already been recognized—government doesn’t give rights, but the way. The whole “Bill of Rights” only recognizes what rights are already there.
Voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Drinking alcohol is not a right. The billeting of soldiers in peacetime is specifically regulated in the Constitution. No one has ever said being a Muslim isn’t a right, rather we point out that it is a horrid ideology with a sole purpose of subjugating the world to Islam, but you are too stupid to understand that. Your “list” I referred to was a claim of regulating inanimate objects as imbedded in the Constitution which it is not. SO now you bring in something that wasn’t even addressed in the comment I referred to, such as cruel and inhuman punishment (very subjective), excessive bail, etc.
So kind of you to let us keep shotguns and pistols, with which anyone who knows what they are doing can kill a whole lot more than that guy did with an AR-15. The Constitution gives us the right to firearms without regulation.
You don’t know anything about my faith because you’d have to understand Christianity, but you are a false priest and a pawn of satan.
Oh, seatbelts are not a right mentioned in the Constitution. Nor are fireworks or paint. Try again fool
If you think governments do not give rights - in real life - then you have erased any grounds on which to make any of your points. By the way, marriage and God are not in the Constitution. Government do give rights, in real life. They also withhold them. The right to drink alcohol was denied by the 18th amendment's prohibition to make, transport, and sell alcohol. Then the right was given back by the Constitution in the 21st amendment. If you cannot concede that the Constitution contains that simple and clear fact, then you've abandoned common sense - no surprise since you'v corrupted your mind so long.
And since judicial review determines what is Constitutional - the Constitution itself has taken granted and taken away rights over the years. It's called interpretation. And it is how we, as representative democracy have governed ourselves, with all such shortcomings. You are unAmerican in your incapacity to acknowledge the truth.
Further, if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.
So, nothing of what you said strikes any truth.
But at least you've acknowledged this lie of yours: "So you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens..."
with this admission: "So kind of you to let us keep shotguns and pistols..."
And this, obviously, is a lie of yours: "Gun ownership is not limited by type in the Constitution." The right to own guns is not mentioned in the Constitution. You lie.
This is also a cherished lie of yours: "Voting is not a right, it is a privilege."
The right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
And if you want to keep playing your deceitful game, bear in mind that neither God nor marriage is in the Constitution.
The simple truth is the we regulate what arms people can bear. Some are prohibited altogether. Some have been part of people's lives and families for decades. Some are new and are designed only to vastly enhance damage and death to people.
And you three, while willfully ignoring the truth that tanks and armored vehicles, rocket propelled grenades and shoulder fired missiles are arms that cannot be allowed to the public due to their lethality, pretend to think that AR-15s and all other assault weapons are protected by the Constitution when they are not. It's up to us to adjudicate what arms are allowable. And the deaths of 35,000 Americans a year count in our moral deliberations. But you three do not count them. Oh, you count the 120 or so killed by terrorists since 9/11. But not the half million Americans killed by Americans with guns.
And our Christian duty to love all neighbors should count for those of us who truly follow Christ... whom you three also deny in this issue.
Actually we don’t so much regulate those inanimate objects as we regulate who uses them and how they are used. But please continue to blame inanimate objects for how they are used or not used.
Also, please continue to
Oh hell, it doesn’t matter, you’ll just make crap up to suit your own whims anyway.
So let military arms manufacturers make assault equipment - they were the first ones to make assault rifles anyway; let the military buy them; let soldiers use them. But not the public. Same with all other high lethality arms.
Take up your shotgun, shut up, and go home. There! Now we’re all safer.
Most people aren’t quite so proud of their ignorance.
The number of made up nonsense terms in one short post is impressive.
Three things they people use to kill, that aren’t regulated.
1. Baseball bats
2. Knives
3. Forceps
Feo,
You are such an ignorant fool, you're not worth my time any more on this post. Your ignorance is astounding. You treat the Constitution the same way you treat the Bible = you make it say what you want it to say. Just like the LEFTIST judges found a right to abortion and fake marriage. Those rights are not there.
Wow. I was being facetious in encouraging feo to keep bringing the stupid, forgetting that being stupid, he will.
First, after numerous posts he liberally despoils with f-bombs, he then pretends he's Christian by calling Jesus his Lord and posting a Biblical passage. Shameful.
Second, he calls Glenn a liar after proving over and over that he cares not for his neighbor at all by his f-bombs, unjustified condescension and insults to better people.
Third, he dares suggest that Craig must find two brain cells when he routinely needs at least two attempts to post a comment, usually with all the same errors from the first time.
Fourth, he lists inanimate objects, the possession of which are not protected by the Constitution and suggests we treat firearms the same way.
Fifth, he believes that bad interpretation of the Constitution is akin to original intent, which he ignores if he understands at all.
Sixth, he's apparently fine with the notion that the Constitution, and how it is interpreted by the Supremes, grants our rights as opposed to acknowledging them. Note how all he presented with regard to voting clearly affirms the vote as a right we already possess. Of course...
Seventh, of course Glenn is correct that the Constitution did not mention voting as a right, and instead deferred it to the states to decide terms for doing so. It wasn't until feodors of the past were condescending toward others (non-land owners, freed blacks, women, etc.) that amendments were ratified that referred to voting as a right guaranteed to all. Whether we're better off for it is still being debated, but that's how it all went down.
more coming...
Eighth, it's important to note that the 18th Amendment did not infringe on the right to consume alcohol, nor did most of the more than half the states that had already banned its sale prior to the Congress even considering a national ban. Yet even today, there are still "dry towns" that prohibit the sale of alcohol and no Supreme Court would suggest that is unconstitutional.
Ninth, the 18th Amendment, followed by the 21st, only shows that the prohibition wasn't a good idea, nor that the gov't always gets it right, as it clearly did not here. Other examples of the courts getting things wrong would b Roe v Wade, which denies human beings their right to life, and Obergefell, which was based on a false definition of "marriage" never before recognized in American history. Neither of these two woefully inept and unjust rulings means they can never be revisited and overturned, but to pretend debate means rights are granted as opposed to inherent because of these debates is idiotic.
Tenth, in line with the previous, simply because guns are regulated to the extent they now are does not mean that there was any constitutional basis for doing so. In terms of "bearing arms", the founders were not witless rubes, like feo, in believing "to bear" meant anything beyond what one could reasonably carry. Tanks, flame-throwers, rocket launchers and the like do not fall within that parameter to any reasonable person with more than the pea-sized brain of a feodor. And given the founders' belief that the citizenry should not be denied the same weapons of any government army, even those in the hands of the law-abiding cannot be seen as problematic except to the aforementioned pea-brained feodors. Thus, the prohibition against fully automatic weapons is also without basis. No founder believed in preemptively denying the law-abiding anything simply because of the possibility that one might act criminally. That's what laws governing "crime and punishment" is all about.
Eleventh, feo believes that all inanimate objects are deserving of equal consideration constitutionally. This is inane, as modes of transportation, for example, have no bearing on the right to freely move about. Driving is not a right, but the right to pursue the ability to drive is. But with weaponry, such is part and parcel with the ability to defend one's self, which everyone has the right to do. For a dunderheaded feo to insist he has any right to dictate to others the means by which they choose to defend themselves is beyond his authority. One is only entitled to decide for one's own self what is necessary based on one's assessment of one's own situation.
Twelfth, constant references to how many die by guns is the ultimate example of feo's stupid, as it fails to address cause over which guns have no unique affect. Guns are but one means, and the rifle, semi-automatic or otherwise, plays an incredibly small role in the total, despite the leftist attempts to highlight mass shootings to further their anti-gun agenda. To suggest the righteous defense of unalienable rights indicates moral failure on our part when the true causes of criminal behavior are unrelated to the inanimate objects used to indulge it is far more odious than feo's blatant stupidity. It is a danger to society as the data clearly demonstrates.
Marshall’s god can’t take language. Or truth. It’s cardboard... but covered in white construction paper so as not to give the wrong idea.
Facts, paper cut-out "Christians", facts:
1. No one says there is a Constitutional right to abortion. What the Constitution says is that there is a right to privacy. Mentioned four times, more than any other right. A woman has constitutional rights to her body at all times, unless she is carrying a viable fetus, and still retains her rights if her life is in danger from the pregnancy.
2. No one says there isn't a Constitutional right to bear arms. Mentioned only once and not directly but rather that it should not be infringed. But for rational people non-infringement clearly includes living with and by restrictions on what those arms should be and regulation of all of them. No, paper "Christians", you cannot have rocket-propelled grenades. You cannot have shoulder-fired missiles. You cannot have anti-aircraft guns, M777 howitzers, armored vehicles, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets with bombs.... you know, the sorts of things that define modern militias, like the National Guard. Machine guns are highly regulated: 1. all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986; requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms; with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred; bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.
________
Assault weapons, being highly lethal and increasingly used in our society on children in schools and young and old in concerts, cinemas, and places of worship, etc. should be rendered highly regulated just like machine guns. Unusable for hunting, defenders are just blood thirsty brutalizing, potentially dangerous people.
Progressive people applaud the fact that abortion numbers have been going down for 20 years. Planned parenthood and other gynecological care/contraceptive clinics have most been responsible for that by providing contraception and healthcare. Removing access to affordable healthcare for women is what drives up abortions, the majority of which are decided upon by single women in their late teenage and early 20s.
Their Constitutional right to privacy should be protected at all costs. Health and wellness should be sacrosanct.
Rational arms to protect ones home are, clearly, for anyone but brutalizing paper "Christians", a lesser right, but a valuable one.
Moral people want to reduce killings. And abortions. And poisonings. And infant death syndrome; the effects of lead paint; the fires and injuries of fireworks; deaths and injuries from not wearing a seat belt, from driving an unsafe car, from speeding, from not accepting the accountability of insurance, from not screening out bad drivers; screening for explosives at airports; metal detectors at municipal, state, and federal court buildings; from tainted food; from un-inspected elevators, boilers; from weapons in bags at sports events; etc etc.
Moral people want to reduce killings. Especially mass killings. Who doesn't? You three don't.
You three are twisted, sick people, fucked in the head because, in days after 17 people were killed in a school - how many since Columbine? - and 14 were injured and hundreds traumatized, you three disgusting people suggest that an assault rifle is nothing more than a baseball bat. In fact, you three are sons of Satan because you suggest more than that, you actually believe in your inhuman, brutalizing souls, that assault rifles should be more protected than baseball bats, and that 500,000 American lives over the last 16 years mean nothing because all three of you are so immoral and thoughtless to actually try to claim that baseball bat and knife deaths over those last 16 years are nothing in the face of... what? Thomas Jefferson's thinking that bodies being blown apart (by a weapon he could never comprehend) are the cost of being a lawful society?
Fucked in the ever living head. Christ knows: get behind him, you're not worth being in his sight.
You three are not Christian. This is your religion:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/g18925932/gun-church-ceremony-photos/
You three have a love of death: you’re anti-Christ each one.
Information and access to affordable healthcare, and contraceptive education for women is the number one factor in reducing abortions. You want to erase such things.
Restricting and regulating guns dramatically lowers homicide by guns and gun violence. All studies prove the correlation. You want to avoid such changes.
Carbon emissions is killing the biology of our planet. You don’t care.
Jesus weeps, and is angered.
A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, “We do not want this man to be our king.’ But when he returned after obtaining the kingship….. “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.”
Only Feo, can’t admit abortions are killings
Nor does the Constitution. I’m in good company.
The three of you claim that you believe abortion is murder. But then everything you do makes your claim a lie. Support Planned Parenthood. Support contraception education and free condoms. Support affordable and easy access to gynecological healthcare. That’s are the quickest, most eff chive ways to resume abortion.
But you twisted fucks will not support such things. You don’t care. You lie.
"Marshall’s god can’t take language. Or truth. It’s cardboard... but covered in white construction paper so as not to give the wrong idea."
The above is a text-book example of gibberish that would make Irwin Corey shake his head in abject pity.
Now for some actual "facts" corrections:
"1. No one says there is a Constitutional right to abortion. What the Constitution says is that there is a right to privacy."
There is no specific right to privacy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. But the issue of abortion is not justifiably placed under the umbrella of privacy. It is a right to life issue. The morally bankrupt (like feo) and morally confused (like certain Supreme Court Justices) improperly view in terms of the mother's life being somehow of greater value and worth than the life of the child she carries. But like the Nazis with regard to Jews, or like the Klan with regard to blacks, people like feo have no problem assuming the authority to declare a person is not a person worthy of 1st Amendment protections due to insignificant characteristics...in this case, size, age and location of the person. Such inhuman attitudes towards one's fellow man is not surprising from the false priest feo, who pretends he's a Christian while advocating for the right to murder one's child based on these subjective and self-serving characteristics. As with this gun debate, he ignores the real issue, which is the taking of human life being the far greater sin than some fictitious invasion of privacy, for there is no right to privacy that allows one to murder any born person.
"2. No one says there isn't a Constitutional right to bear arms. Mentioned only once and not directly but rather that it should not be infringed."
This is either feo bringing the stupid again or he is intentionally lying. Most likely a combination of the two. In any case, he's wrong as usual:
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.
Can't be more direct than that. He then goes on to fart:
"But for rational people non-infringement clearly includes living with and by restrictions on what those arms should be and regulation of all of them."
No, pitiful loser. You're clearly confusing "rational people" with "irrational and dishonest people". Restrictions are by definition infringements. But only a horse's ass would pretend that the expression "to bear arms" includes all manner of weapon not particular easy to bear, such as rocket launchers. Few people, even at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be so stupid as to pretend it meant hauling about anything more cumbersome than a rifle. One would have to be a feodor to believe one could adequately defend one's self from a mugging with a cannon. But cannons were commonly owned privately at that time and the government would prevail upon private owners for their use. The point is no one seeks to carry around cumbersome weapons as a matter of routine, and it takes a real feo to suggest it's a legitimate concern that without government prohibition that people would take to carrying around rocket launchers.
More coming....
feo goes on to mention an array of military tech not available to civilians. The fact is most of what he lists is indeed available for sale. I found a site that included two missile launchers, one a scud launcher with a captured missile. Aircraft of all kinds, tanks, armored vehicles. While they are likely non-militarized, they are all functioning to one extent or another and someone with military experience, particularly with maintaining these things, could certainly make them battle ready. But, and again only a feo would pretend this is a real issue, cost for these things is prohibitive.
But this is about the right to keep and bear arms and what was meant by that to those who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It meant even fully automatic weapons because the Constitution/Bill of Rights is meant to prohibit the behavior of the government, not the people, and the first notion of self-defense was defense against a despotic government. This is particularly important given what led to the writing of the Constitution in the first place...the fight that led to independence from a despotic government.
What's more, while certain weapons are indeed denied the average citizen...like machine guns...there is no Constitutional justification for it whatsoever. The notion that the government, the very entity against which the Constitution was intended to restrict and regulate, can dictate through either legislation or the courts what can or cannot be selected by a citizen for his own defense is something only a feo would consider rational. The founders are rolling in their graves that such a thing is even contemplated, much less actually made law. There's no basis for it and nothing in the writings of any founder that would even so much as hint as such a thing. So simply because certain weapons are denied us doesn't mean that they should be or that a chucklehead like you could argue why they ought to be without totally being in conflict with the Amendment that protects that right we all have. But by all means, feel free to leave yourself defenseless.
The stupidity of feo continues:
"Assault weapons, being highly lethal and increasingly used in our society on children in schools and young and old in concerts, cinemas, and places of worship, etc. should be rendered highly regulated just like machine guns."
Assault weapons are already prohibited. They are fully automatic weapons. AR-15s are not assault weapons, even when fully outfitted with accessories that make them look like M-16s. Only a lying feo would continue to abuse that term to further this anti-American agenda. Only an idiot like feo would continue to pretend the weapon chosen by lunatics and criminals is the problem and not the lunatic and criminal.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-ban-not-answer-mass-shootings/
"Progressive people applaud the fact that abortion numbers have been going down for 20 years."
Lip service from a false priest who only pretends to be a Christian concerned with innocent human life, but supports the "right" to take that life under the BS premise of "privacy". (Of course murderers want privacy to murder)
"Removing access to affordable healthcare for women is what drives up abortions..."
Just the type of lie I've come to expect from feo, the false priest. What drives up abortions is the notion that sex is for pleasure and the life that might come into existence by engaging in the act designed by God and nature to bring about that new life is expendable for the sake of sexual self-gratification.
"Their Constitutional right to privacy should be protected at all costs. Health and wellness should be sacrosanct."
This is how satanic and craven this Molech worshiping false priest feo is. He regards as sacrosanct the right to privacy in order to deprive the most innocent, vulnerable and defenseless human beings their right to life...and he does so by suggesting pregnancy is contrary to a woman's health and wellness, as if it is a disease. What a vile excuse for human flesh this guy is!
"Rational arms to protect ones home are, clearly, for anyone..."
Aside from lacking the wisdom and intelligence, you don't have the authority to dictate to others what constitutes for them "rational arms". Feel free to defend your family with stupidity. We rational people will keep them in our prayers.
"Moral people want to reduce killings. And abortions."
Sure, but why don't you?
1st, moral people don't say they want to reduce killings and then pretend abortions belong in a separate category, they being killings a well.
2nd, moral people look to what drives people to kill and address those causes.
3rd, moral people concentrate on protecting the innocent from those who seek to kill them because moral people, particularly moral Christian people (you are clearly neither---not so sure you're "people", either) understand that evil exists and insists on engaging in evil acts and being evil, the evil will find a way to do what evil does.
"Moral people want to reduce killings. Especially mass killings. Who doesn't? You three don't."
Considering we three support that which will actually have a positive effect on reducing ANY killings, the above is just more feo stupid on display.
"...you three disgusting people suggest that an assault rifle is nothing more than a baseball bat."
Again the question now is, is the above feo just being stupid or purposely lying? The correct answer is always, "BOTH!" Not a one of us said assault rifles, which are not available except to the military, is comparable to a baseball bat. We didn't even say that semi-automatic rifles of any kind is comparable to a bat. What we did say, because it is true and easily researched (except by feodors because they are so lacking in intelligence and honesty), is that the use of objects such as baseball bats account for far more murders than all rifles of any kind put together. Here's a hint: it's easier to pay attention when your head isn't rammed to high and hard up your backside.
Here's another thing we support: It is the right to bear arms and that could mean a semi-automatic rifle, such as an AR-15 OR a baseball bat if one so desires. Not that one should be more protected than the other, you inveterate idiot.
"Thomas Jefferson's thinking that bodies being blown apart (by a weapon he could never comprehend) are the cost of being a lawful society?"
This is laziness as well as stupidity and lying. Jefferson was an inventor. While he likely could never comprehend the possibility of someone as stupid and evil as you, he likely was well aware of the advances in weaponry going on during his lifetime, such as repeating rifles.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/logan-metesh/founding-fathers-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/
To suggest that he couldn't imagine weapons even more superior to that is the wishful thinking of a desperate idiot with no truth to support his agenda. But then, you're unfamiliar with the concepts of truth and honesty.
"Information and access to affordable healthcare, and contraceptive education for women is the number one factor in reducing abortions. You want to erase such things."
Rank bullshit. No one here opposes actual contraception (that is, preventing fertilization), but rather we oppose anything loosely called contraception that actually kills a fertilized egg or any person who has developed beyond that point. More importantly, we want people to be more moral self-disciplined and to abstain from sexual intercourse until the are 1) married to the person with whom they will have intercourse, and 2) prepared for the possibility that a child may be conceived despite their best efforts to prevent it. Here's another thing that will reduce abortions: making it illegal, since it's murder 99.99% of the time.
"Restricting and regulating guns dramatically lowers homicide by guns and gun violence. All studies prove the correlation. You want to avoid such changes."
More BS. Only removing firearms totally can reduce gun violence. There are no studies you can provide that proves any correlation between guns laws and violent crime because the tools used don't matter. But then, you're a liar.
"Nor does the Constitution. I’m in good company."
Only if you consider as good company other liars who pretend the right to life doesn't include those conceived but not yet born. It takes a real satanist like you to regard such people as "good company".
"Jesus weeps, and is angered."
Because people like you corrupt His teachings. Your time will come and He will say to you, "I do not know you."
"The three of you claim that you believe abortion is murder."
Because it is.
"But then everything you do makes your claim a lie."
Only to liars like you for whom truth is a lie.
"Support Planned Parenthood."
Can't. They make their money murdering babies. We support all those other options, for which there are many, many more just as easily accessible to all women regardless of income level who don't murder babies.
"Support contraception education and free condoms."
We not only support sex education, but we know there's likely not one school in the country that doesn't have it. As for free condoms or birth control pills, not a chance. They aren't expensive and if someone can't afford to buy their own, they're obviously not mature enough to engage in sexual behavior. But as you're a supporter of sexual immorality, you don't care. "Kill them babies...just don't stop me from gettin' jiggy!" You and Molech....thick as thieves you are.
Now run along, putz, and get some morals.
1. My tax dollars already support PP.
2. They are a hugely profitable business.
3. They make the vast majority of their $$ doing abortions.
Impressive that you get your scientific information from the constitution. Bold choice, but one more borne out of ignorance.
I love how the left substitutes vitriol and name calling for argument.
I’m perfectly fine fine with you owning an AR-15, Marshall, if you stuff it’s barrel with concrete.
Being sick in the head, you willfully miss the point. Being stupid, you think that’s a good look..
Craig claims an inanimate object (taxes) speaks his convictions on abortions.
And then follows with blatant lies to bolster his actual convictions. PP is a nonprofit. And abortions are 3.5% of what they do.
The point, false priest, is defending our kids and our clearly enumerated rights. Your position is wholly detrimental to both, and your inability to reason continues to be proven. You think protection is more likely after taking away the means to do it.
I just LOVE Art's wonderful take-downs of everything false priest Feo say. I got to laughing as I read through it all. Art, you're brilliant!
You're lying again. This "3.5% of what they do" claim has not only been proven to be a willful distortion of how they categorize their "services", but has been debunked by former employees who held upper level positions within the organization. Abortions are their bread and butter and their reason for existing, as well as to slow the growth of the black population, you murderous racist buffoon. They encourage abortions because no other "service" they provide brings in the amount of money abortions do. Go back to Molech and stop pretending you care about kids and minorities. You're the reason their lives are at risk.
Thanks, Glenn. Sometimes I think feo's just playing devil's advocate, as it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid.
Art,
Oh, it's easy for me to believe he is that stupid. We have many of his ilk in this area. The county I live in is known as the most liberal county in Iowa, especially with the University of Iowa; Iowa City is often referred to as San Francisco east. I've had many discussions with the Feo ilk during our many years of street ministry. They do indeed walk among us.
Proven: where there are more fund, there is more gun violence. You’re screwed by science. That’s why your death angel heart has to deny science. You’re a violence culture lover.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
Screwed by math, too, Marshall because you’re a violence culture lover.
(You get an “F”, Glenn: ignoring facts and being a liar who sticks with liars.)
Out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedure. When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services.
Glenn wouldn’t know stupid if he saw it in a mirror.
Planned Parenthood is now spending $20 million to get demokrats elected:
http://www.kvoa.com/story/37626184/planned-parenthood-to-target-8-states-spend-20-million-as-part-of-midterm-battle-plan
yeah, they are in such need of tax dollars, aren't they?
How about that 3% claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U
https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/09/14/watch-live-action-fact-checks-planned-parenthoods-claim-that-abortion-is-only-3-percent-of-its-services
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/01/amazing-infographic-exposes-planned-parenthoods-big-fat-3-lie/
These are just a few of the many examinations of the BIG LIE of the murdering PP. And yet Molech worshippers like Feo continue to spread the lie.
Oh, and they’re too stupid to know that men don’t have uteruses.
Oh, way to misrepresent what I said. Clearly honesty isn’t that important.
Glenn is confusing money for lives: exactly what inhuman brutality loving, anti-Christs do.
Abortion is 3% of what Planned Parenthood does.
Craig, I’ve never seen anyone so quickly hide behind the words he just spoke by denying what they mean.... wait... actually I see someone just like you on the need every day: orange hair, sort of, paper clipped red China-made tie...
Feo stands by the lie of 3%. What an abject lying fool.
I stand by the fact that the earth is round, too. Planned Parenthood’s funding is tied to accurate reporting and their report is audited every year. And Congressional committees review the audit. These facts are undisputed. Though people lie. Sad that Glenn loves lies with every meal.
Out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedure. When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services.
Feo, you must have me confused with someone else. My comment was clear, the fact the you had to twist it isn’t my problem.
With only a tiny bit of effort you would have found out that those numbers are incredibly obfuscatory. But you keep cheering for the 328 thousand dead, and you keep pretending that we’re the ones rationalizing bloodshed.
Nope. It’s you. You’re the one who cannot back up your own words. You just move on to the next diversion. As you just did.
Planned a Parenthood significantly reduces abortions. Even while Republicans significantly reduces access for women to Planned Parenthood. You three and the Republican Party rationalize bloodshed.
Tightened restrictions and enforced regulation of guns reduces gun homicides and gun violence. Connecticut, Australia are but two examples. You three and the Republican Party oppose restrictions and regulations. You three and the Republican Party rationalize bloodshed.
Carbon emissions are choking our planet and killing biological life, including human beings and our food source. You three and the Republican Party deny clearcut science. You three and the Republican Party rationalize bloodshed.
Off to see Black Panther. Wakanda lives!!! ✊🏾🇿🇦
How appropriate, given that so much of what you say is simply fantasy. V
328 thousand dead innocent children, and you revel in it.
Feo refuses to look at the bonafide evidence against the "3%" lie, because he loves remaining ignorant while he chastises us rational people for our sanity.
A huge lie says Republicans have reduced access to PP. There is no one blocking access to PP abortion mills. And he spews more and more liberal lies about "carbon emissions" which have been proven wrong by so many studies, that only an ignorant fool would continue such claims. I swear, I don't know why Art tolerate his stupidity.
"Nope. It’s you. You’re the one who cannot back up your own words. You just move on to the next diversion."
I'm pretty certain it wasn't Craig who brought up PP and carbon emissions. Those diversions were yours, false priest. So stop lying.
The following...
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/10-numbers-you-should-know-about-planned-parenthood
...is one of many sources I could have provided that debunk the 3% lie feo is lying about now. It describes how it fudges the numbers in order to push that lie publicly so that Molech worshipers like feo can pretend PP is a wonderful place worthy of our tax dollars. Another interesting number is the last one, showing just how much coin this "non-profit" takes in.
From this point forward, I will be deleting any further comments from feo regarding non-gun related issues.
He’s interested in the eradication of the undesirables which explains his uncritical support for 238k tiny corpses.
As to feo's four links, they are problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that feo provides them. That is, if it comes from feo, one best check because it's doubtlessly false, misleading or incredibly misunderstood by feo himself. I'm referring to his comment from March 3, 2018 at 12:22 PM. Beginning first with the last one, the Rand example, I must note that it is a very detailed piece that requires far more time than I have at present, though I will be going over it for my own edification as time permits. The point here is that there is no way feo took the time to truly peruse it, instead simply asserting that it supports his position. In an effort to understand how they do their thing, I took a look at their stats regarding Child Access Prevention laws, which supposedly result in fewer gun related injuries or deaths due to kids getting their hands on guns in the home. Yet, at this point I've not found how they actually measure that such laws are the reasons the numbers of injuries or deaths have gone down. These laws vary from state to state and the first question is whether or not the kids are aware the laws exist before deciding to play with Daddy's gun, or, if in those cases where Daddy abides the new law, would his kids have attempted to play with the gun in the first place.
The other three are problems because of the premise it tries to put forth as worth considering. For example, the SSRN piece speaks of whether or not concealed carry laws reduce murder rates. I'm not sure that's something that can be measured either, because how can we tell when someone changes their mind because they are now concerned that anyone nearby might be carrying a gun, too? They are judging murder rates without knowing intentions of those who choose not to murder. At the same time the numbers of CCP holders rises, so too does the general population. I'm not seeing any mention of per capita numbers, though I admit I may have missed it in my cursory review.
The Scientific American piece is mostly anecdotal crap, but it tries to push the notion that the number of guns in the home increases the numbers of those killed or injured with guns. Well, DUH! But that doesn't mean that there's an increase relative to the numbers of people who now own weapons. No one, not even the NRA, would suggest that there is no possibility that among the many millions of new gun owners there might be included in that number some less than responsible people. But that must be weighed against the total, not merely how many there were before. If the numbers of owners rises higher and faster than the numbers of gun related incidents, then the argument fails miserably, because the vast numbers of owners makes the number of incidents a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole, even though there may be more as well. And feo pretends it is I who fails to get the math!
Based on a small bit of research, it seems like a reasonable minimum percentage is between 21% and 27% is abortion. It also appears as though Planned Parenthood would count an initial appointment at which the decision to have an abortion was made in the actual abortion procedure scheduled, the abortion procedure, and any follow up visits as three separate and individual services. When most medical providers would Would link the three.
So here are some links with better information that feo will reject because he's a liar:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
This next one I like because it directly addresses feo's link that thinks aggravated assault is a key indicator for opposing CCP:
https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/concealed-carry-permit-holders-crime-statistics/
The following I add for a particularly noteworthy point:
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/
...it presents about 32 cases of mass shootings by "concealed carry killers". But at least ten of those cases are noteworthy for being cases of mentally ill people who still managed to acquire a CCP or those with criminal records that should have prevented them from acquiring a CCP. In one or two cases, the perpetrator had the permit and then developed mental/emotional issues that compelled family or friends to plead for the revocation of the perp's CCP, but it didn't happen.
The point with this is that no one suggests perfection is possible but that the absence of perfect policing is no argument for denying the right to keep and bear arms. But that's what the gun-grabbers do and liars like feo are totally down with that practice.
Finally, at least for now, there's this:
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340
The NRA is accused of preventing research into gun violence. That's nonsense given their mission to promote safe gun ownership. But their opposition to some research that has taken place is not due to the alleged goal, but to the bias of those funding the research. They begin with a premise and seek to prove the premise and no honest American (that leaves YOU out, feo) should accept such. At the same time, no one can be stopped from doing research of any kind should they find funding for the purpose. But as long as there are feodors in the world, liars can push anything by saying "it's scientific" and many will accept it as gospel...generally because they reject the actual Gospel...like feo does.
And had barbecue after. A lot of fun. Which is what distinguishes me fro Craig. I leave the fantasies for fun. Craig keeps them for reality. That Craig claims to value life while supporting everything that leaves lives open to being gunned down and abortion unchecked and the planet dying... is no surprise. Life isn’t meant to be happy on Craig’s brutalizing world view. Just lonely, stripped of community, under any threat that has a whim.
Craig’s suggestion that PP makes 3 discrete events out of one choice for abortion has the eff ct of really making abortion 1% of what they do. I wonder if he realizes that.
Glenn continues to show he has no planetary home. Can’t cough up any refutation that abortions are 3% of PO procedures. Continues to think of money as a life. And straight up lies for the 30th time re GOP attacks on Planned Parenthood (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/13/523795052/trump-signs-law-giving-states-option-to-deny-funding-for-planned-parenthood).
Marshall slurs a few hundred words to end up at a loss to refute all the studies proving that more guns... duh... the more gun homicides and gun violence. In fact, for every 1% increase in guns per population of any region, there is an 0.8% rise in gun violence.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
*sigh*
feo is such a loser. He sees what he so desperately needs to see in order to justify his baseless self-image as intellectually superior.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/7/ex-employee-planned-parenthood-has-abortion-quotas/
Note at the end of the above link how it states the goal of GOP lawmakers (and people like Craig, Glenn, and myself to name just three) is to both defund this abhorrent organization and divert those tax dollars to women's health centers that don't provide abortions. So REAL women's health care would continue and people like feo will have to find other ways to destroy poor and minority infants before they see the light of day.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/former-abortion-workers-speak/
And above is yet another that undermines the "non-profit" lie, and how their business is abortions, not women's health care, prenatal or otherwise.
This next one has a video that might be easier for feo's small mind to handle:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/14/the-numbers-that-show-planned-parenthood-about-abortion-not-womens-health/
It also states "Even The Washington Post and Slate have called out the abortion corporation for its deception." But the Molech worshiping feo prefers to join in the lie, because he's the false priest and truth is anathema to him.
That makes two "refutations that abortions are 3% of PP procedures" that feo doesn't have the honesty, decency or Christian character to accept (because he's no Christian in the first place). Thus, all chances have expired. Not so much as a mere hint of another reference to PP will be tolerated by feo. Any further comments not solely focused on the topic at hand will be deleted. All others might want to withhold responses to feo's equally fallacious gun comments if it also contains references to PP or the environment.
As to leaving lives open to destruction and murder, it is liars like you who do this by herding kids and others into "gun free zones" that no better than painting targets on their chests. He removes the ability of responsible people to dissuade murderers by arming up for the task should it arise. To asshats like feo, rifles and pistols force whoever holds them to fire indiscriminately at unarmed people. The murderer has absolutely no culpability to idiots like feo. In the meantime, this false champion of the black race has no problem with the fact that young black men are more likely to die at the hands of other young black men than by anyone else.
His claim that I "slur a few hundred words" is clear cowardly diversion from facing the realities clearly present in my responses. And then, being the non-thinking buffoon he has so clearly proven himself to be time and time again, attributes to me a claim I never made...that studies "prove" more guns result in more gun violence. His reading comprehension skills are grade school level at best...and I say that knowing full well what an insult that is to first graders. I not only acknowledged that "fact", I clearly indicated how incredibly unworthy of "all the studies" paid for to "discover" what is obvious to anyone who doesn't spend his life like feo...with head up the ass. My point was that such a "fact" is meaningless without the fact that the increase in gun ownership still does not correlate with the level of increase in gun violence about which fear-mongering dips like him warn us. Far, far from it, even with the increase in crime we've seen since the last two years of Obama's reign.
What a sorry and pathetic excuse for a college graduate feo is...assuming that's not just another lie.
I posted THREE links proving the LIE about 3% and yet Feo never looked at them, just claimed I never presented evidence. What a lying fool.
And Feo is done with his visit to an African fantasyland and keeps the fantasy going here. It’s clear, that actually providing links just scares him onto some other topic rather than to engage with anything that might expose him to the possibility that he could be wrong.
Hell, he’s even satisfied with fansasy BBQ.
Feo can't handle FACTS which disprove the lie of PP, so he says everyone else is lying. Hysterical!
Glenn: "A huge lie says Republicans have reduced access to PP. There is no one blocking access to PP abortion mills."
Marshall: "Note at the end of the above link how it states the goal of GOP lawmakers (and people like Craig, Glenn, and myself to name just three) is to both defund this abhorrent organization and divert those tax dollars to women's health centers that don't provide abortions."
Ooops... you guys aren't on the same paaaage!
I was responding to Glenn's lie. Marshall has backed me up on that.
As for Marshall's mangled facts crowd, they never list what PP does do:
4.2 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases
2 milion long-acting reversible contraception
1.5 million young people receive sex education in a year.
1.1 million pregnancy tests
941,589 emergency contraception
579,000 unintended pregnancies prevented
360,000 breasts exams
3,445 vasectomies
That's roughly 10,700,000 procedures, not counting abortion procedures.
All your links, Marshall and Glenn accept that PP does 325,000 or so abortion procedures.
325,000 abortions is 3% of 10,700,000 other procedures.
The numbers are easy to find.
But you three are idiots. And fail at math. And truth.
Oh my gosh!! The false priest is really earning his false priest title in these last three lie and stupidity filled comments. I'll be addressing them all real soon.
That’s right. Buy time. Takes time to dredge up lie after lie. Ask yourself why your cheap propaganda links never counted up the procedures done: because they’re lying and facts aren’t welcome.
Buy time??? To respond to YOUR stupidity and blatant lying??? That's hilarious!!! I'm at work, baby-killer. Plus, you've simply denied yourself, by your routine unChristian behavior, any courtesies normally bestowed upon absolutely everyone else, such as a timely response. So bite it.
In the meantime, my "cheap propaganda links" use the exact same numbers from PP that liars like PP and you are using. The difference is that unlike you liars, they are presenting the truth regarding how you're using the numbers improperly and dishonestly in order to perpetuate the 3% lie.
More later as time allows. I advise others to resist the urge to engage with the false priest on anything unrelated to the post topic...which is guns.
Maybe in your fantasy world, little feo. But here in the real world, normal, honest people don't agree. My warning to others is because I'll be deleting your off topic comments when I'm home in front of my computer. I can't do it from my phone. So I'm anxious to do that. But I'm thinking of saving you stupidity and lie filled comments for another post. Haven't decided yet. After all, I've really addressed your stupidity and lies well enough already.
By they way, removing funding for PP does not "block access" to them. Only an ignorant fool would say otherwise.
PP doesn't need gov't funding, since they just turn around and spend it on Democrat campaigns. NO ONE will be BLOCKED from PP.
Though feo is not allowed to respond to ANY comments on this thread unless his comments are TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY devoted to the topic of guns, I now provide for him the video he didn't watch from a previous link I provided which explains in terms so simple even he should be able to understand, why Planned Parenthood's "3%" claim is a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=qtgqxvaV-8U
He knows this explanation is correct and true, but he isn't honest enough to admit it, because he's all about killing innocent babies along with leaving students and others defenseless against armed aggressors.
And yes, it is completely stupid to suggest that simply because tax dollars might be cut off from PP, access is in no way "blocked". IF, and that's a huge "if", PP is in such dire need of money, then they can appeal to other people who have no desire to protect innocent lives...people like feo and most leftists in the world...to donate to their black hearts' content. People like me who care about innocent lives would prefer our tax dollars go to other women's health care centers that DON'T murder innocent babies. There are more of them and they are more accessible to women in need as a result.
While Feo revels in bad BBQ and the carnage of 328,000 innocent victims, he has the temerity to call others names.
The very though in taking such joy at hundreds of thousands of innocent victims being deprived their most basic rights, while trying to deprive others innocent, law abiding people of their rights is truly depraved.
Feo, when you just make stuff up out of whole cloth, it's hard to take you seriously.
I'm sure you'd like to think that PP is trying to reduce the rate of a significant source of non government income. I'd be shocked if whatever reduction in rate they're "responsible" for has been in predominantly white demographics. How much more likely is it for black kids to be aborted than born in parts of the country? Margret would be so proud.
Just like the NRA is attempting to uphold the right to bear arms, but you any your ilk want to kill them and have no problems with death threats to individuals and their families in order to achieve your goal. Because depriving hundreds of thousands of individual, innocent, human beings of their inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't heinous at all. Personally, I'd just like to see some reasonable, common sense restrictions placed on abortion.
Once again, I appreciate your bizarre attempt to present your remote psychoanalysis as fact, but as usual you're wrong.
I'm not the one reveling in the deaths of 328,000 people per year. I'm not the one trying to protect and expand that killing, you are. Beyond that, you should ask for a refund from the ACME internet psychoanalysis school. You clearly got taken.
Just like you got taken by some fake BBQ.
feo,
What about "stay on topic" is so difficult for you to understand? I know you're stupid, but you're not even trying.
BTW, none of my links suggested in the least that the "abortion is 3% of what we do" argument is untrue if they are separating it from all services provided for the woman who comes for an abortion. The point is that all of those things such women receive as part of the path to that abortion would not have taken place if she was not there for the purpose of having an abortion. They lie is that by playing these numbers games Planned Parenthood is purposely trying to downplay what they truly are: an abortion mill.
Furthermore...and read this slowly with help from an adult who can explain it to you...for all the non-abortion "services" you think Planned Parenthood provides as if women's health is really a concern of theirs, other, more plentiful women's health centers exist that provides the same things. There is nothing a woman needs that she can't get elsewhere with the exception of having her child mercilessly destroyed.
What's more, there is no such thing as an "unintended pregnancy" if a couple engages in the act designed to impregnate a woman. It's absurd, but with your promotion of sexual immorality, getting laid takes priority over the lives to the children murdered by those who can't act maturely and responsibly and with self-control.
So stick to the topic, feo. You'll get your chance to have your anti-life position regarding abortion at a later date. Right now, you've got your hands full defending your anti-life position regarding the gun issue. You're failing in doing so, which is why you're diverting attention away from it to abortion.
BTW, while I would very much prefer that everyone stick to the topic, no one but YOU, feo, will be deleted for not doing so, because they're not liars, haters and fake Christians (though Dan's on shaky ground if he ever decides to get a spine and join in).
feo,
What you re-post does not help your position. I'll explain it's many flaws at a later date in its own post. Stay on topic. The others don't care what you think your links say.
Craig deserves an answer. He’s lost. The fact that you are scared of the answer doesn’t concern me.
Why would you think I'd be afraid of any answer you've ever provided or any you ever will? You don't even understand what you're providing. I'll explain at a later date. This post is about guns...another topic you've proven you don't understand, demonstrating once again that it is YOU who is so hopelessly lost, not Craig, Glenn or anyone else on the right side of the ideological divide, regardless of the issue. No amount of cheap condescension and insult from you, nor misunderstood and/distorted data from you could possibly change that.
I'll be deleting your non-gun related comments just as soon as I can get back to my computer at home. Put on your big boy pants and try to deal with it
Once you trotted our Guttmacher you lost what little credibility you might have had. Using the PR firm for abortion isn’t quite an unbiased source.
But, you continue to revel in the 238,000 little corpses every year you and your cronies have given us with your love for abortion.
You don’t even have the faux compassion to trot out the “safe, legal, and rare” canard.
So you revel in your proud accomplishments in being a cheerleader for death.
If it helps you live with the guilt, then I guess I understand your need to paint others with the brush you use to paint yourself.
Mostly, I’m just saddened by the hatred and vitriol that your reflexively default to. Clearly the love and grace of Jesus is foreign to you.
Oh, wow, Craig. You feel justified in feeling superior to 1 of 4 of the documents and it's reference to studies published in a dozen peer reviewed scientific journals. You are truly amazing.
The other three I guess go the best of you.
On the other hand, I've done a good deal of reviewing the studies and numbers you've provided for you position... uh, they're around here somewhere. I'm sure I printed them out for detailed reading. Hang on... well, no. Can't find them.
It may be, just may be, that they were never printed. That you, in fact, never linked any. It may well be that the studies and numbers for your position... are a fantasy... of a sick, brutalizing mind that says, "lives, lives" but, since you haven't lived a good one... you don't know what life is intended to be.
That you revel in the death on innocents tell me what I need to know about you and your merciless worldview. That you invest so much time and effort into defending the killing of human beings. The fact that this killing is a multi million dollar business just underscores your callousness.
The fact that you have to contort reality to make me a villain, says more about your need to drag others down to your level than about the rest of us.
The fact that you celebrate the deaths of 328,000 innocents every year, the fact that you revel in this as if it’s a benefit. It’s sad, pathetic, and disturbing for one who claims to be a Christian. It’s intetes that your actions and celebrations are the complete opposite of what Christ taught us, yet you call others ( who don’t lower themselves to your level) “anti christ”.
The fact that 328,000 deaths per year doesn’t even give you pause, is the only statistic that matters.
Just so you know, back in the early 60’s when my mother got pregnant with me, it was people like you who would have cheered her to abort. Instead, she chose life. My life with an amazing adoptive family. So yeah, I have a pretty good idea about what life is intended to be. Yet you want to deprive millions of children like my sister and I of the chance at life.
That your arguments here are all about yourself has zero surprise. Do you know what they call a moral system based only in one’s self? Egoism. That fits you. You put up all kinds of walls so that you don’t EVER have to consider others’ real selves. They’re dead to you as persons and only exist for you as math.
Have you yourself adopted? I hope so. There are half a million foster care children in the US; 2 million homeless children in this country. Wouldn’t it be nice if the anti-abortion army put their lives where their mouths are.
Abortions would be lowered still if sex ed and contraception and easily accessible medical care were the norm. But in your bitter rigidity, hung on brutally corrupt dead religion, you work against lowering abortions.
I do not.
Once again with the long distance amateur psychotherapy, why not give up the attacks and the stuff you make up to salve what’s left of your conscience.
Oh, please. Read what you wrote: the repressed anger is clear to be heard for anyone of any insight. Being read so clearly keeps disturbing you. But it’s not about me. Pay attention to your own voice and reflect.
Coming from one who celebrates and revels in the deaths of 238,000 children, calling me “brutal” seems the height of irony.
But all you have is demonization and mischaracterization of others, so why would I be surprised.
I have facts; I have science: I have enlightened reasoning about what can influence what. We know perfectly well how to reduce abortion. I also have disgust for how you and people like you trust the circulating buckshit that serves only your comfort. Egoist and brutalizing.
The reason you never do link to studies, to summaries of studies, to open thinking about what works. The reason that all you do is snipe and snivel and spew, the reason you provide absolutely no problem solving ideas whatsoever, mere laissez-faire cop out, is because the anger is all personal, just as you’ve shown. Locked up anger that feels good to you because it is self validating. That’s why you don’t see the cowardice of it, the harm. And being blind and numb to the harm you cause is what makes you brutalizing.
Yes, it’s all personal. Your long distance internet psychoanalysis is spot on.
Oh, the reason I don’t waste my time with much for either you or Dan, is I see how you respond when evidence counters your narrative. It not worth my time.
Or, it could be that no amount of “research” and PR will make the killing of 238,000 innocent human beings per year palatable. Perhaps it’s the fact that people like you revel and celebrate the culture of death over inconvenience that the abortion industry represents. Maybe it’s that your “research” and PR are so overshadowed by your vile and uncivil behavior that people with a conscience are simply repelled by you and your behavior and therefore ignore anything you say.
Those are possibilities also, not that the possibility that you could be wrong would ever cross your closed mind.
I'd love to see evidence from you. Never happens. You avoid evidence like the plague. Apparently evidence is not worth your time.
"Each year, about 50 percent of all pregnancies that occur in the US are not planned, a number far higher than is reported in other developed countries. About half of these pregnancies result from women not using contraception and the other half from incorrect or irregular use. A new study by investigators at Washington University reports that providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent compared to the national rate."
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
So, your answer to couples who are not able to access the multitude of inexpensive or free methods of birth control, is that they simply kill the results of their union.
That sounds reasonable. Exactly how long into the development of the child do you advocate killing him or her?
But, by all means, continue to make up whatever narrative helps you feel better. It's especially effective when you make up things that contradict what I've actually said.
238,000 dead humans. That number appalls me, it fills you with joy and the desire to encourage that behavior. That's all the evidence necessary to demonstated that you are heartless.
Contraception is expensive. Planned Parenthood isn't, two of the links you couldn't handle point out.
My answer is that you and I work to elect representatives who care about lives and about reducing abortion. Continue to fund Planned Parenthood and pass a law states cannot block full range reproductive health care and clinics and cannot block sex education in schools and clinics. People living on 125% or less of the poverty line should have access that is not more than a few hours drive away.
See how easy good care and abortion prevention is. All while still defending women's right to privacy found multiple times in the Constitution - four times more often than arms.
___
"... when you make up things that contradict what I've actually said." It would be more convincing if you had an example.
"238,000 dead humans. That number appalls me."
No it doesn't.
When I bring up gun deaths you just say people would use knives. By your logic, and by the sheer absence of any plan by you to reduce abortion, your inferred response must be that if we outlaw abortions people will just use hangers.
Please show me the quote where I said "people would just use knives"?
What I actually have said, is that this hysterical attack on assault rifles would at best potentially stop roughly 3% of gun deaths per year. Which, clearly doesn't begin to solve the problem, but allows the social media lemmings to feel good.
But, you act is if what I say or don't say has any bearing at all on the narrative you are going to push without regard to reality.
"Contraception is expensive. Planned Parenthood isn't"
I'm not sure what your point is. Multiple forms of birth control can be had for as little as $15 per month, while the most effective form of birth control is free. Abortions average $700 per. That particular math seems a bit fuzzy to me, but whatever.
Here's a radical pro choice thought. If you can't afford the $2.70 (average condom cost) per week (twice a week), maybe you should re think your priorities, and possibly make different choices.
" It would be more convincing if you had an example."
OK here's an example.
"You? Not one damn thing, you anti-Christ."
Unless of course you have proof.
Or that $5 per month for a diaphragm, that's way cheaper than a $700.00 abortion.
Indeed. Still need a doctor to prescribe. And a clinic for a doctor to work. And a visit co-pay.
"The Remote Area Medical Expedition, held at a county fairground in Appalachia over three days ending Sunday, drew more than 2,000 people who endured high heat and long waits for basic health services. It was a dispiriting reminder that as Congress flails around for health plans that could cost millions of people their insurance, many more don’t have much or any insurance or access to medical care to lose.
Four years into the rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions, 29 million Americans still lack health insurance. Millions live in states like Virginia that did not expand Medicaid to childless adults among the working poor, as the law allowed. Even for people helped by government programs like basic Medicaid, veterans’ care and disability, there are many gaps: Low-income people struggle to afford co-payments, the gas to drive to a doctor and prescription drugs."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/healthcare-uninsured-rural-poor-affordable-care-act-republicans.html
Three things they people use to kill, that aren’t regulated.
1. Baseball bats
2. Knives
3. Forceps
"You? Not one damn thing, you anti-Christ." Waiting.
Excellent, a bunch of random comments that demonstrate nothing.
Really, condoms are by prescription only?
It’s fascinating that you ask a question, I answer your question, then you twist my answer into whatever suits your purpose.
But, if you can’t prove what you say to be true, I guess that just buttresses your credibility.
What you don’t seem to understand is that you can offer all the statistical justification to kill innocent humans you like, but that doesn’t stop the fact that your applauding and support the ending of 238,000 innocent lives every single year. You’re all giddy at the thought of possibly preventing some percentage of the deaths caused by “assault rifles” (about 130 per year), but unmoved by 238,000 innocents whose lives are ended.
The fact that your concern lines up so totally with your political leanings, may not strike you as callous, but you don’t seem to concerned with consistency anyway.
Waiting for what, you to demonstrate the accuracy of your statement, me too.
"Or that $5 per month for a diaphragm.."
"Really, condoms are by prescription only?"
No wonder you think reasoning is random.
And you think I twist what you're saying? I'm always untwisting, straightening out, which you think of as opposition twisting. Because you can't even follow yourself.
Waiting for you to get a brain. Then you'll recognize the accuracy: all the data regard reducing abortions. You have a right to lie about it. I have a right to point out your lies.
Pretty much done with you, clown 🤡. You don’t have a damn thing to offer. Except knives and diaphragms that you can’t remember for more than ten minutes.
Treating people with love and respect a communal commonweal will always be best. Christ knew. Many of us know.
You? Guns are forever; women do not control their lives; abortions need to disappear on their own through magic fairy dust.
If you think you are an example of treating people with love and respect, that explains so much.
As for your last sentence, I’ve clear never said any of things so it’s fitting that you slink off with a lie as your final word.
Love and respect doesn’t come to liars normally. But you don’t live in the normal.
Well, there’s the whole “I haven’t lied” thing. While you’ve been simply inventing all sorts of things out of whole cloth.
But I’m sure if you put forth just the tiniest bit of effort you could learn how that whole love of Christ thing works and embrace loving those who you defame.
"Love and respect doesn’t come to liars normally.
And no one proves that more clearly than feo, who is a liar, and shows no love or respect for anyone here, and far less for the 300K put to death by their own mothers every year, or the thousands of others, including school kids, who are murdered because law-abiding people are denied the right to carry weapons for defense of themselves or any of the kids who are murdered.
feo wants to talk "facts", but while he clings to facts by those trying to defend their heinous murder-for-hire abortion business, he ignores actual facts collected by law enforcement agencies (like the FBI), that shows more people are murdered by baseball bats, knives and other means, including hands and feet, than are murdered by all rifles put together (including AR-15s).
He lies with the BS phrase "unwanted" or "unintended pregnancies", as if engaging in the act that is meant by nature and God to bring forth new human life is not an invitation to life, and thus cannot honestly be classified as "unintended". To use an analogy that is at least on topic, that's like pointing a gun as someone's head, pulling the trigger and then suggesting the death of that person was unintended.
There is no "contraception" less expensive than abstinence, but people like feo pretend it's an impossibility and as such must be resolved by murdering the unborn at taxpayer expense. And this is another lie, that it cannot be provided without taxpayer expense. All these intellectuals that rationalize the murder of the unborn aren't willing to donate for the cause...they'd rather rob the general public to fund their heinous and hateful practice.
No...wait...that's not accurate. It's worse than hatred. They don't even recognize the humanity of the unborn, because they are just that evil or corrupted by it. This isn't in any way loving or respectful for one's fellow human beings, though it is the vile evil of the liar...and feo is not just a liar, but a hater of truth.
As to data, I've provided all sorts that feo rejects because, like Craig says, it refutes the false narrative to which feo clings like stink on feo. Indeed, he still clings to the "3%" lie without even acknowledging what the lie is. It's not that abortion is supposedly only "3%" of what they do when compared to all the other services easily had at other non-aborting women's health centers that are far more plentiful than PP, it is that PP wouldn't exist without abortion because they exist to provide abortion. That is what they do. That's how they make their money. That's what they encourage their employees to promote and for which they give bonuses for those who do it best.
We have a plan to reduce abortion. It begins with outlawing the practice except for cases where the pregnancy risks the life of the mother. It includes promoting morality in our schools and bringing back shame for those who put getting their nuts off as some kind of badge of honor. feo doesn't support real plans to reduce abortions, because he supports "a woman's right" to kill their unborn, as if it is health care.
May God have mercy on this hell-bound false priest and non-Christian.
What, you mean it’s possible to exercise control over ones urges to engage in sex with any and everyone possible. I’m shocked.
One of your lies repeated a dozen times: “... your applauding and support the ending of 238,000 innocent lives every single year.“
I am the only one here with constant and consistent recommendations backed up by research for reducing abortions and rendering them unnecessary over time. One may disagree with the recommendations. One may even disagree without any evidence backing them up. One may well disagree merely on a basis of religious commitments. (Such a person will, however, look stupid if they keep it up without any evidence on their side [such as this study: http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf] but stupidity alone doesn’t make one a liar.)
Lying about evidence makes one a liar. As Glenn and a Marshall do.
And lying about my motivation clearly makes one a liar, since I am the only one recommending proven ways to reduce abortions should respecting the Constitution. This is what have done.
Therefore you are a liar. And a multiple repeat offender.
It would be great to see the three of you exercise self control on stupidity. But, alas, human beings aren't meant to be be computers. You guys express the freedom to be quite and stubbornly stupid.
You lie yet again. You pretend you're working toward reducing abortions while doing all you can to insure it continues. Keeping abortion on demand legal makes it a viable option for those who won't deny themselves sexual gratification. Pretending "viability" is an honest and science-based point at which one considers another worthy of protection means the unborn are slways at risk so long as sub-humans like feo exist. Pretending people over 10 yrs old have no idea how babies are made and have no options but PP for learning shows how cheap a rationalization will get from those who support "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child.
Abortion is protected both as a constitutional right of privacy and a medical necessity to save the mother in extreme cases.
I am not needed to ensure anything.
Unwanted pregnancies are a burden and the choice regarding abortion a greater burden stil and both can be avoided and is best avoided through affordable and accessible contraception.
That's what I work toward.
So it is you who lies about me. Just as Craig did.
What I wont do is be like you and lie because I think my faith is served by lying. Even if one's faith has problems with viability, it is un-Amerian to impose that tenet of one's faith on a secular democracy and it is un-Chritian to impose it on one's neighbors.
Great recommendations, pass out free contraception and give abortions when things get inconvenient.
You are consistently in favor of the 238,000 abortions that happen yearly and consistently working to maintain thar state of affairs.
If your faith isn’t served by lying, then you must have some other bizarre motivation for lying so often.
strangely enough your “solution” to the gun problem is to ban inanimate objects and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who’ve done nothing.
Your “solution” is to make sure as many people as possible get to kill their offspring.
My recommendation for the gun problem is to allow reasonable arms. Assault weapons, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, shoulder fired mistakes, howitzers, and tanks are not reasonable.
And regulating reasonable guns with enforceable requirements like title, registration, and annual insurance.
Gun violence will be cut by... who knows maybe 60 to 80 percent. Because as we know: the more guns, the more gun violence.
Hundreds of thousands of lives saved over 29 years.
What’s your plan.
More guns, more gun violence? Again I say, "DUH!" Only a low intellect feo thinks that's a compelling argumentm. I mean, there are no automobiles on Mackinac Island. Guess how many auto fatalities/injuries they have? For the rest of America, it's the reckless/negligent use or intentional misuse of motor vehicles that results in auto-related deaths and injuries, which continue to outpace the Constitutionally recognized and protected right to bear arms.
As to lying, you do so again by pretending anyone is actually seeking the right to walk around with RPGs and grenade launchers. Any legitimate attempt to address the gun rights issue does not include such blatantly false rhetoric.
Viability isn't a religious debate point, except once the science is considered (not that it needs to be for honest people). Science affirms the humanity of the fertilized ovum, so Christians can do no less than regard them as the unique and separate human being their unique DNA says they are. Only the most sinful and corrupt would consider such people a burden unworthy of bearing after willfully inviting that child of God into existence by selfishly engaging in intercourse for the fun of it.
As we know from actual data, the rate of gun violence has been dropping at the same time the rate of gun ownership has been rising. So we don’t actually know that more guns equal more violence.
As for your solution, as long as you can’t define “reasonable arms” and “assault weapons”, it’s really just a pointless exercise in making you feel good. You’re just pulling numbers out of your ass with your 60-80% and hundreds of thousands of lives.
You claim, this “proposal” will save “hundreds of thousands of lives” over 29 years, yet your perfectly content to lose 328,000 lives every single year from now to eternity.
I made a series of proposals a couple of weeks ago as a place to start. You’ve ignored them this far.
There has to be a reason you can’t or won’t be specific and define your terms. Good luck focusing on inanimate objects.
C’mon Art, you know how important it is to uncritically accept Science on everything. Until, it’s time to deny science because it interferes with the propagation of abortion.
Of course the DNA in fingernails “argument” is foolish. But, it moves the debate away from the realm of biology (which tells us unequivocally that a unique, complete, human being is formed at conception), and into philosophy.
Your “response”, is to criticize me for pointing out the reality that your crossing the line from science to philosophy by saying that I’ve avoided something, after you avoid specifics and defining your terms.
Your snippet from a 16 year old article makes my point exactly. The last paragraph illustrates the move from biology, to philosophy. Once you establish the philosophical principle that parents get to choose what type of “child they have”, you’ve opened a door that will most likely lead to abortions because a child lacks certain traits.
Shockingly enough, I’ve been asking a question that gets to this very issue.
Not only is your article relatively ancient, it’s also quite clear that the claims haven’t actually been proven with evidence. I guess this is another area where ideology trumps science.
Who’s ignoring anything. I’m simply pointing out the reality that 1. This hasn’t happened yet and 2. That it raises philosophical questions along with the science issues.
All of this becomes increasingly amusing as it continues to add layers of distraction to keep moving away from your vague, imprecise, undefined, optimistic “solution”.
Not surprising, but amusing.
Never? Really? Proof?
If you don’t/won’t/can’t read the existing comments, why would I bother to repeat myself. It’s not my problem that you think that you can predict results based on a vague, undefined feelings based “plan”.
feo,
Are you trying to suggest that I should somehow now equate fingernails with a human being because I stated the fertilized ovum has unique DNA? Really? If so, you're really taking that "bring the stupid" to heart.
As to clones, should one actually be developed, then obviously we're talking about a human being. I don't see the confusion here. I also don't see its relevance in a discussion about guns. You seem to have a real problem with focus. Another problem among so many.
Again with the stupid. You have a real gift for it.
I never said I was cool with cloning humans. I said if a human was actually cloned, we'd be dealing with another human being. How could such a bright boy such as you missed such a clearly stated point?
Non-reproductive sex? You mean like fondling? Sexual intercourse is reproductive, regardless of whether or not reproduction occurs or whether or not it is intended. Sexual intercourse for pleasure is permissible within a legitimate male/female marriage. But responsible people understand that reproduction is possible despite one's best attempts to avoid it (barring medical procedures that make it impossible or physical impairments as well), and are willing to care for the child that may be produced. Responsible people don't kill children because they don't want them.
Funny how you continue to regard yourself as intelligent, but proving yourself the opposite isn't a problem.
Back to the topic:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/guns_men_and_murder_the_data.html
It appears, according to the stats reported in this piece, that the issue isn't "more guns, more gun injuries/deaths", but whether or not crime, particularly murder is impacted by either the presence or absence of guns. It seems not.
And the dodging continues. Not surprising, still amusing. Who knew that asking you for definitions would be the equivalent of sunlight to a vampire. I guess you’ve used up all your google mojo for the week finding pro abortion propaganda.
Clearly the result of cloning a human is s human, the science seems reasonable to lead to that conclusion. The question becomes what does disconnecting reproduction from the biological family mean for those humans. Does it become ethical to clone people to harvest their organs? Will the government dissolve the biological family before we get to cloning? The philosophical questions are endless, but at this point it’s still theoretical.
Do you often have “queer sex” on your mind? Maybe on your browser?
I think your being simple because your not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Back to the post: your Americandrinker is reporting on “data” from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). The founder and sole researcher of which is John Lott, the author of the study. Fox and Breitbart and Washington Times covered this same story. There was too much dismantling of John Lott for me to lay down here. But you’ve fallen for fake news.
Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety has been formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia.
After founding CPRC, Lott’s website proudly declared it published a study in a peer-reviewed journal. “CPRC Has New Refereed Publication in Econ Journal Watch: Explaining a Bias in Recent Studies on Right-to-Carry Laws.” Having a study accepted in a peer-reviewed journal was a big win for Lott, boosting both his own reputation and that of the CPRC. The only problem? The paper was never actually published in the Econ Journal Watch.
While Lott claims the per capita rate in the United States and Europe are approximately the same, his own data tables tell a different story. Accepting his data at face value, between 2009 and 2015, the United States had 25 mass shootings versus 19 in the E.U. and 24 in Europe as a whole. This comes out as a rate of .078 shootings per million individuals in the United States, .038 for the E.U., and .032 for Europe as a whole. The United States has more than double the mass shooting rate of the E.U. and Europe, directly contradicting Lott’s statements about his own data.
Once again Feo, if you actually read the comments you’d be so much further ahead.
I realize it’s easier to take the vague, undefined undetsiled approach to a problem then make wildly optimistic claims about its effectiveness. But details and definitions are useful.
Your obsession with “queer sex” is obvious, although maybe pornhub would be a better spot for you to focus on that.
Not nearly as interesting as your obsession with not providing definitions and details as well as your obsession with gay sex. I guess we learn something new about you on occasion.
Real educators employ facts, deal in reality, don't rely on distortions and apples to oranges comparisons. This and more is what constitute "educating" to you. But all you've taught is what we already know, that you're a liar, a death cult advocate and among the poorest examples of a false priest trying to convince others he's a Christian as I've ever seen.
Nothing you've presented to "school" me is without obvious flaws and sourced from very biased people. You once again fail yet do a victory dance like the village idiot you clearly are. I'll never stop being amazed that as one so intellectually deficient you continue to think you're coming out on top. It truly saddens me how pathetic you are. You actually have to have superior intelligence in order to condescend to any of us. You so clearly and dangerously aren't.
Who knew that being asked Poor definitions of terms, and specific details, would generate so much obfuscation. Maybe you should hit the favorites tab on your browser, and head back to your favorite beer sex websites. You could probably find that last threatening.
I’m not skating away from anything I’ve asked you the question clearly and directly you’ve just chosen not to answer. It’s really not that hard, all you had to do was define your terms and give some details but apparently that’s just too much to ask for.
Post a Comment