Pravda was like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who famously denied that US troops were even close to, let alone in, Baghdad, even as you can hear the US tanks and military in the background of his press briefing. Pravda never admitted what was obvious to anyone who lived there (Great News! Chocolate rations have been increased to 22 grams from 40 grams!) and saw what was happening in the USSR, and learned - easily enough - what life was like outside.
How was the Internet pre-2015, pre net neutrality? Was it so bad that everything got so much better in 2015 when "net neutrality" was put into force? If not - then why give the Government even more power?
Actually, it's that net neutrality tends to increase regulation and Government intrusion driving up costs to offer new services, and thus retarding growth in the space.
Build a gun with a drill press and hand tools! Lots of other related books telling you how to make even simpler guns, ammunition, even gunpowder. Buy from Amazon, have it on your Kindle a matter of seconds!
No, it is not. Go read James Madison's first cut at the 2nd Amendment. And then realize he simplified the concept. It's only if you don't LIKE the right that is enumerated that you twist it all around and include stuff like militias.
In this case, it's not a prohibition against manufacturing, it's a prohibition about even talking about a specific potential design to make one. Essentially a thought-crime.
No, it was clear - it was people who didn't like what it said that confused and muddied it. The Supreme Court has been quite clear - the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, it does not need justification. It's only a matter of time before concealed carry is available everywhere, and most likely unlicensed (as it is now in many States). I've posted the link and the quote of James Madison in the first, wordier iteration of the 2nd amendment - it is an inalienable, individual right.
Yes, the Constitution is a living document - and it contains the means by which it can be altered. Changing it without following the described process is effectively tyranny.
No. Owning a firearm has conditions or justifications, it just is. AND, as a side-benefit, an armed society is best able to resist a tyranny.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.
No "because", no "as a result". Two distinct statements. One saying what the right is - to keep and bear arms. And another stating just one benefit. But there is ZERO qualifier on "why" a person has the right to keep and bear arms. None. That is a fabrication.
Even Snopes agrees that the number killed per capita is higher in Norway and other places. They call it a "mixture" by pointing to the median, rather than the mean. So the mean is correct - the average number of people killed in mass shootings per capita is higher in Norway, Belgium, France and other places. But the number of mass shootings per capita is higher in the US. The original claim I made, as worded, is 100% correct - per Snopes. Now if you want to say "lying with statistics" because I didn't state what you wanted me to - that's your issue, not mine.
The ironic thing about your statement is, that those who scream "CLIMATE DENIER!" the loudest tend to be the same ones who deny the dust bowl was the hottest time we ever had, even to the point of just now being equalled (at least, that's how it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s until the adjustments were fast and furious). Or that we've had the exact same 30-40 years of temperature increases before, just about 100 years ago. Or that we've been warming since the early 1700s, well before CO2 exploded. But they deny facts anyway and scream "DENIER!" for refusing to accept the proclamations of the new High Priests of Science - and ignore the old pantheon like Feynman, Einstein, and others.
Then do the correct and right thing and change the Constitution. There is a process to do so - use it. Or do we just decide that rule by executive fiat is acceptable?
Now - where did that sea level rise come from? Natural or man-made processes (as claimed in the title of the article)? Think long and hard before you answer...
Slashdot Mirror
Well. Diamond and Silk and Candice Owens are racist and misogynist because they support President Trump, so...
/s
45 - the favorite President of Billy Dee Williams.
Pravda was like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who famously denied that US troops were even close to, let alone in, Baghdad, even as you can hear the US tanks and military in the background of his press briefing. Pravda never admitted what was obvious to anyone who lived there (Great News! Chocolate rations have been increased to 22 grams from 40 grams!) and saw what was happening in the USSR, and learned - easily enough - what life was like outside.
CNBC and Harvard pretty much agree with the President, and I don't think those are two right-leaning organizations...
The majority of the votes that count went to President Trump - 304 to 227.
Actually, he was. By a ratio of 304 to 227.
How was the Internet pre-2015, pre net neutrality? Was it so bad that everything got so much better in 2015 when "net neutrality" was put into force? If not - then why give the Government even more power?
I think you need to review what regulation means...
Especially when you consider some of the lunacy coming out of the Bay area...
Actually, it's that net neutrality tends to increase regulation and Government intrusion driving up costs to offer new services, and thus retarding growth in the space.
Godzilla has dibs on the 4th one.
Build a gun with a drill press and hand tools! Lots of other related books telling you how to make even simpler guns, ammunition, even gunpowder. Buy from Amazon, have it on your Kindle a matter of seconds!
Afghanistan and Vietnam would like to remind you of what happens when a superpower tries to control them...
Neither do the guns in this book, or many others...
It is overturned about 80% of the time, putting it in the bottom 25% in terms of rulings that stand.
No, it is not. Go read James Madison's first cut at the 2nd Amendment. And then realize he simplified the concept. It's only if you don't LIKE the right that is enumerated that you twist it all around and include stuff like militias.
In this case, it's not a prohibition against manufacturing, it's a prohibition about even talking about a specific potential design to make one. Essentially a thought-crime.
Yes, it is. At least since 1990.
No, it was clear - it was people who didn't like what it said that confused and muddied it. The Supreme Court has been quite clear - the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, it does not need justification. It's only a matter of time before concealed carry is available everywhere, and most likely unlicensed (as it is now in many States). I've posted the link and the quote of James Madison in the first, wordier iteration of the 2nd amendment - it is an inalienable, individual right.
Yes, the Constitution is a living document - and it contains the means by which it can be altered. Changing it without following the described process is effectively tyranny.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.
No "because", no "as a result". Two distinct statements. One saying what the right is - to keep and bear arms. And another stating just one benefit. But there is ZERO qualifier on "why" a person has the right to keep and bear arms. None. That is a fabrication.
Even Snopes agrees that the number killed per capita is higher in Norway and other places. They call it a "mixture" by pointing to the median, rather than the mean. So the mean is correct - the average number of people killed in mass shootings per capita is higher in Norway, Belgium, France and other places. But the number of mass shootings per capita is higher in the US. The original claim I made, as worded, is 100% correct - per Snopes. Now if you want to say "lying with statistics" because I didn't state what you wanted me to - that's your issue, not mine.
PS: try the link again. It does work.
The ironic thing about your statement is, that those who scream "CLIMATE DENIER!" the loudest tend to be the same ones who deny the dust bowl was the hottest time we ever had, even to the point of just now being equalled (at least, that's how it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s until the adjustments were fast and furious). Or that we've had the exact same 30-40 years of temperature increases before, just about 100 years ago. Or that we've been warming since the early 1700s, well before CO2 exploded. But they deny facts anyway and scream "DENIER!" for refusing to accept the proclamations of the new High Priests of Science - and ignore the old pantheon like Feynman, Einstein, and others.
Then do the correct and right thing and change the Constitution. There is a process to do so - use it. Or do we just decide that rule by executive fiat is acceptable?
Now - where did that sea level rise come from? Natural or man-made processes (as claimed in the title of the article)? Think long and hard before you answer...
It's actually a rather common thought by many, so much so it's even asked about on Quora and is brought up more than once.