Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.

[Wry Catcher]

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else. So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.

COOL, Why not prove your assertion, find a surface to air missile, and go to the nearest international airport, and when you are supine with guns drawn by LE, tell them what you wrote here.

 

[miketx]

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else. So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.

COOL, Why not prove your assertion, find a surface to air missile, and go to the nearest international airport, and when you are supine with guns drawn by LE, tell them what you wrote here.

Loving crime so much must take lots of your time.

 

[bripat9643]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

There isn't a single fact in that spew. Opinions are not facts. Get that through your fucking head.

Agreed.
Correlation is NOT an indication of causation.
For example, homes with guns could experience much more violence because homes with guns are in neighborhoods that ARE already much more violent, so then need the guns.
There is no way to indicate that having the gun caused the violence at all.

And the claim that guns are NOT used for self defense more than they are used for crime is proven a lie.
Even the DOJ admits guns prevent over 2.5 million violent crimes each year.
The fact statistics claiming otherwise try to imply you have no prevented a crime unless you have shot and killed the criminal, and that is almost never the case.

It's a poll of nothing more than opinions. Opinions don't become facts because someone takes a poll of them.

 

[boedicca]

I'll file this with the scientific consensus that the earth was flat.

 

[bripat9643]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

Not exactly.
The word "oxymoron" means the phrase uses conflicting descriptors, like "jumbo shrimp" or "pretty ugly".
It is not unreasonable for someone to want a scientific consensus.
The problem is that the consensus that Dante is creating, is not at all "scientific".
First of all you can't use polling and be scientific, and second is that you can only use scientific experts in the fields of crime.
Someone with medical experience in treating gunshot wounds for example, would have absolutely ZERO scientific experience in the causes or conditions of gun violence.
You don't want experts in guns, but in violence.
What you would want to do is determine what is causing the increase, and what the best way to diminish it is, that actually fixes things instead of just suppressing symptoms.
And there is nothing like that provided.

"Consensus" isn't scientific. It's political. The descriptors do conflict.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write? My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.

 

[miketx]

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write? My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.

A blank space can only improve your posts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Why do you always leave a large blank space before you begin to write? My best guess is you consult the blank space between your ears, and post what you learned there.

Ooooh, was that supposed to hurt? No, junior, it's an artifice of posting from my phone.

 

[westwall]

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Right off the top of my head? The Paul Wellstone Memorial. They basically drove Republicans out of the hall in what was supposed to be a non-partisan event. That was at the very beginning of their total unmasking.

 

[peach174]

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

She broke the law.
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

The other is political and has not been completed yet.

Neither example is a mob.

 

[westwall]

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Right off the top of my head? The Paul Wellstone Memorial. They basically drove Republicans out of the hall in what was supposed to be a non-partisan event. That was at the very beginning of their total unmasking.

Did they chant, "go back to where you came from", in unison? I guess not, the top of your head wasn't sufficient; next time have some evidence = to a trump rally.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.

At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation. Childish you suggest? How mature is "antifart"?

In fact I find both sides anathema. I support debate, not shit tossing. But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.

At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation. Childish you suggest? How mature is "antifart"?

In fact I find both sides anathema. I support debate, not shit tossing. But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.

Problem is you never debate but demand everyone agree with your opinion on the subject and refuse to agree to disagree...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.

At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation. Childish you suggest? How mature is "antifart"?

In fact I find both sides anathema. I support debate, not shit tossing. But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.

Problem is you never debate but demand everyone agree with your opinion on the subject and refuse to agree to disagree...

Oh BULLSHIT. Am I supposed to respond to you, "we can agree to disagree" when you attack my character? Maybe you ought to read the posts above by WESTWALL and me without your biases.

 

[westwall]

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

Members of mobs are individuals, are they not? Think first, because I think I know what you'll respond, and it won't work out well for trump supporters.

No, they are not. Once an individual has joined the Mob, that Mob mentality takes over. Mobs do horrible things, and cause the individuals within them to do horrendous acts that they never would as a singular person.

That's why demagogues and totalitarians love the Mob, it is mindless, ruthless, and easily led by power hungry villains.

Does the chant, "lock her up" ring a bell? Does that qualify each member at a trump rally to be part of a mob? How about yelling in unison, "Mexico", when prompted by trump "who will pay for the wall"?

Can you name another place and time when Democrats acted in these manners?

Does the fact that they were not trying to incite violence, as your heroes antifart do, mean anything to your tiny little brain?

For someone who claims an advanced degree your arguments are remarkably infantile.

At times I do talk down to those who lack cogitation. Childish you suggest? How mature is "antifart"?

In fact I find both sides anathema. I support debate, not shit tossing. But when faced with someone like you, I won't lie and admit I throw shit right back at you.

The problem is you have always just thrown poo. I'll make a deal With you, if you really want to have a legit debate I am happy to engage with you in a respectful manner.

I require the same courtesy.

What say you.