No, the national ACLU and various state-level ACLUs came right out in favor of gun control and tried to maintain the collective rights BS. Of course, other state ACLUs are quite good on the gun issue.
Erm, no. The best reason a criminal has to kill you is to keep you from identifying him. The best reason a criminal has to run away is a gun in the hands of his victim. Most criminals don't want to chance death.
Erm, no. The US has the highest gun ownership in the world. Somewhere between 290 million and half a billion weapons in civilian hands depending on which form of measurement you use. However, Canada does have a pretty decent gun attachment rate, and if there were any truth to more guns=more crime their crime rates would be higher then they are.
I fucking live in Chicago, well, the greater chicagoland area now, but I used to be in Chicago. So take your whiny bitch ass and shut up about it suddenly being political invective. Our politicos are some of the scummiest on the planet and have been for the past century.
This entire fucking reveal is nothing but a campaign stunt by Obama. What sort of ratfucking moron admits to intelligence ops just for a campaign boost. Oh wait, it's the chicago politician in the white house.
What part of fixing the problem don't you understand? First of all, you seem to not understand that we cannot mandate that the world use those technologies and in fact they would not because it would give them an advantage. Secondly, you still have the problem of excess CO2. Which requires reduction, either through additional carbon sinks in the form of forests which requires killing people off to make room for those forests, or massive carbon sequestration. Those are really your only two options. Or the giant solar shade. Good luck with that one.
If one were to eliminate all human CO2 production RIGHT NOW, according to the the AGW models the earth would continue warming for at least another 3/4 of a century. Cutting less than 20% of total emissions which is the most any of the proposals currently on the table do would have jack all effect.
But if you get an American's CC number you can donate to him, seeing as his campaign disabled(It's turned on by default) CVN and doesn't do name verification.
There are exactly TWO options to solve global warming that don't involve spewing interesting concoctions into the atmosphere to decrease temperatures. Well 3, but a giant solar shade would be more difficult than the other 2. The first is to kill off over 90% of humanity and let plant life spread over the unused land once again. The other would be to invent carbon sequestration machines than can appreciably reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those are the only realistic options. However, instead of screaming for either of those options, AGW proponents all scream about reducing CO2 output in the 1st world, with the utterly unfounded assumption that everyone else will follow suit.
I switched from HFCS soda to sugar based soda with no other diet/activity changes and lost 15 lbs over the course of 4 months. So it's not just abundance of food but also it's composition. Of course, if it wasn't for certain govt. subsidies and tariffs HFCS wouldn't be in every goddamned sweet mass-produced snack.
The biggest problem with the AGW crowd is their continued insistence that the west reduce their CO2 emissions as if everyone else will simply follow suit. This is of course absurd on the face of it. More importantly according to their own models, even if ALL CO2 emissions stopped the warming would continue for at least another 3/4 of a century and would not reverse on its own. You would think that they would be screaming for massive amounts of research primarily into carbon sequestration first as well as nuclear energy along with beamed microwave power. The latter two more than allowing for massively reduced reliance on coal and oil. Instead all their solutions oddly enough demand more government interference at a lower standard of living. All of them.
It's missing gave mexican drug lords over 2000 weapons in an act of war against mexico that's killed at least 3 us citizens and well over 200 mexicans.
The proper term would be nation-building. The problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq is that the period after the war was half-assed. Either we should have gone in and wrecked EVERYBODY remotely connected to our enemies in the area, then pulled out, or gone in as we did and then settled down for some SERIOUS nation-building. Which realistically takes a minimum of 20 years and a fuckload more resources than were put into either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Any gun study with the name KELLERMAN attached to it, as the study that statistic comes from is, cannot be considered valid.
No, the national ACLU and various state-level ACLUs came right out in favor of gun control and tried to maintain the collective rights BS. Of course, other state ACLUs are quite good on the gun issue.
A better metric would be police puppicides.
Legal guns or illegal? Because it makes a large difference.
Syria has an attachment rate of 3.9 per 100 pop. That's pathetic. The US has between 95 per 100 pop and 150 per 100 pop depending on the metric used.
Erm, no. The best reason a criminal has to kill you is to keep you from identifying him. The best reason a criminal has to run away is a gun in the hands of his victim. Most criminals don't want to chance death.
Erm, no. The US has the highest gun ownership in the world. Somewhere between 290 million and half a billion weapons in civilian hands depending on which form of measurement you use. However, Canada does have a pretty decent gun attachment rate, and if there were any truth to more guns=more crime their crime rates would be higher then they are.
I fucking live in Chicago, well, the greater chicagoland area now, but I used to be in Chicago. So take your whiny bitch ass and shut up about it suddenly being political invective. Our politicos are some of the scummiest on the planet and have been for the past century.
Given that, it absolutely has to be authorized from the big O himself. Specifically, the content of the article is from a book
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/202541/confront-and-conceal-by-david-e-sanger
This entire fucking reveal is nothing but a campaign stunt by Obama. What sort of ratfucking moron admits to intelligence ops just for a campaign boost. Oh wait, it's the chicago politician in the white house.
What part of fixing the problem don't you understand? First of all, you seem to not understand that we cannot mandate that the world use those technologies and in fact they would not because it would give them an advantage. Secondly, you still have the problem of excess CO2. Which requires reduction, either through additional carbon sinks in the form of forests which requires killing people off to make room for those forests, or massive carbon sequestration. Those are really your only two options. Or the giant solar shade. Good luck with that one.
If one were to eliminate all human CO2 production RIGHT NOW, according to the the AGW models the earth would continue warming for at least another 3/4 of a century. Cutting less than 20% of total emissions which is the most any of the proposals currently on the table do would have jack all effect.
You should probably brush up on 1st amendment law as it by and large protects expression as well.
But if you get an American's CC number you can donate to him, seeing as his campaign disabled(It's turned on by default) CVN and doesn't do name verification.
There are exactly TWO options to solve global warming that don't involve spewing interesting concoctions into the atmosphere to decrease temperatures. Well 3, but a giant solar shade would be more difficult than the other 2. The first is to kill off over 90% of humanity and let plant life spread over the unused land once again. The other would be to invent carbon sequestration machines than can appreciably reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those are the only realistic options. However, instead of screaming for either of those options, AGW proponents all scream about reducing CO2 output in the 1st world, with the utterly unfounded assumption that everyone else will follow suit.
Well, until they look at how historically the GW sourced sea level rise predictions have been quite a bit off as well.
I switched from HFCS soda to sugar based soda with no other diet/activity changes and lost 15 lbs over the course of 4 months. So it's not just abundance of food but also it's composition. Of course, if it wasn't for certain govt. subsidies and tariffs HFCS wouldn't be in every goddamned sweet mass-produced snack.
The biggest problem with the AGW crowd is their continued insistence that the west reduce their CO2 emissions as if everyone else will simply follow suit. This is of course absurd on the face of it. More importantly according to their own models, even if ALL CO2 emissions stopped the warming would continue for at least another 3/4 of a century and would not reverse on its own. You would think that they would be screaming for massive amounts of research primarily into carbon sequestration first as well as nuclear energy along with beamed microwave power. The latter two more than allowing for massively reduced reliance on coal and oil. Instead all their solutions oddly enough demand more government interference at a lower standard of living. All of them.
It's missing gave mexican drug lords over 2000 weapons in an act of war against mexico that's killed at least 3 us citizens and well over 200 mexicans.
The proper term would be nation-building. The problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq is that the period after the war was half-assed. Either we should have gone in and wrecked EVERYBODY remotely connected to our enemies in the area, then pulled out, or gone in as we did and then settled down for some SERIOUS nation-building. Which realistically takes a minimum of 20 years and a fuckload more resources than were put into either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Look, she's stressed from being put on paid leave after yelling at a kid that it was illegal to 'disrespect' the president.
Is the USPS bankrupt? No? Then they HONOR THE DAMN CONTRACT.
And yet it's still walking slower in that direction than anyone else.
If they abolish the BATFE, who's going to give guns to the mexican drug cartels?
You had to make tens to a couple hundred million a year equivalent. Which is all of 10 people max.
The solution is obvious, remove all padding.