Cory1848

11 minutes ago, JCauto said:

19 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

Comic books don't count. lol.

Try different scientific journals.  

There was a major report in June of last year that said the overwhelming majority (something like 90%) have totally debunked the Man Made Global Warming theories as "garbage". 

 

Reference please. This is clearly nonsense.
 

I think the "major report" of June 2017 cited by the OP is addressed here:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Apparently it appeared in, or was regurgitated at, Breitbart, not exactly a reliable source of information. It usually takes just nanoseconds to discredit the kinds of garbage disseminated (irresponsibly) by people such as the person who originally posted here, but people will believe what they choose to believe <sigh> ...

2 hours ago, hugocnx said:

Yes, you are all twisted up. Maybe you heard the bell ring.

Please "dude", if you would kindly answer my question rather than avoiding it.

There was nothing in your post that I could find to answer, or to avoid.

2 hours ago, hugocnx said:

You trust those scientists? Influenced, indoctrinated, blackmailed and or payed by their Jezuit owned universities; NWO pastor Al Gore and the whole globalist elite wanting you to believe their nonsence?

Whoa dude ... the Jesuits? Or did you mean the Freemasons, or am I getting things all twisted up? Man, have a beer.

2 hours ago, Dustdevil said:

Same here. I worked there 1992-96 and again 2009-2015. Glad to say goodbye to all that.

Then why did you stay there for five years, then go back for another six years, to live among such despicable people?

16 minutes ago, wayned said:

I lived in a small town Southern Mississippi about 65 miles north of New Orleans from 1976 to 1986 and became one of those armed nutters with the gun rack and rifles in the back window of the pickup and a 357 magnum under the seat, but I don't remember ever hearing about any nutter going into a school and massacring students and teachers.  I knew that there were some roads that you did not drive on in the early morning hours of deer season! 

Fair enough; for what it's worth, in terms of per capita gun deaths, Mississippi comes in 4th, trailing only Alaska, Louisiana, and Alabama. In terms of murder by gun (per capita), the state overtakes Alabama and comes in 3rd. I don't know what this tells us about Mississippi, if anything, but school massacres seem to take place randomly, north, south, east, and west, in red states and blue states alike; the law of averages would indicate that one will eventually occur in a school somewhere in Mississippi ...

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course it is, but realistically that is nearly impossible. But there is a glimmer of hope. Restrictions on gun ownership are possible even with that amendment. We need a lot more of them. 

I hope a bit more than a glimmer. What’s required is leadership. A politician determines what people want most to hear and then parrots those desires right back to them. A leader determines the best thing to do and, if he (or she) finds he’s backing a minority opinion, deploys his talent to convince his opponents otherwise. I can’t think of any people capable of that in the United States right now, not on a national level.

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

By your logic they should take the guns away from the cops and soldiers too then. 

Yes ... (?) Several people posting have mentioned countries whose police forces don't routinely carry firearms. Some countries, notably Costa Rica, don't have military forces. One can't be unrealistic about the short term, but what's wrong with setting these kinds of examples as long-term goals? Briefly surveying the past few millennia, one quickly sours on the idea that human beings might be capable of evolution, but nevertheless can't one hold out hope, somehow, that someday we might turn the corner?

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

A token gesture to placate the howling mob of gun grabbers.

In other words, too little, too late.

13 minutes ago, sirineou said:

deleted!

I misunderstood your post 

The vast majority of people getting killed by guns get killed at home , So why not have armed guards at home ?

 

Each year, armed American toddlers -- who chance upon loaded guns carelessly left out by their brain-dead, gun-owning parents -- kill twice as many Americans as Islamic terrorists do. I suppose this gets into Darwin Awards territory ...

2 minutes ago, wabothai said:

Yeah, a country full of gun loving red necks, cowboys, crackers and rambos, the 45 lovers.

7 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

And that just shows what a corrupt, screwed up country the USA have become.  Shame on you America. 

I'm American, and I talk to friends back home pretty frequently; they describe life there under the current regime as "surreal." (When civic life plays out entirely on the level of the surreal, that can breed great artistic creativity and innovation -- as in Weimar Germany, for instance --  so perhaps there's a silver lining here, however modest!) 

2 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Wrong on many things on that post...just take things at face value rather than assume anything man and seems you assume much in that post. OK, guess we are done here then. I couldn't possibly comment further as it will get deleted...might as well leave your and my comment up man.

?? -- You too, Dude. Whatever.

31 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Yes, some further gun laws probably wouldn't be a bad thing in the US, like restricting certain sections of people to certain sections of weapons and making waiting times to acquire guns longer would be good etc. However, current and previous presidents have and will continue to fail to get this voted through into law as many of their law abiding constituents are having none of it (not just the evil NRA etc.)....it's a non-starter really, and to change or amend the constitution now is pretty much impossible due to the support needed to do so.

 

As an aside, even though this is an emotional issue, it is glaring how the young now "demand" so much to be implemented (regardless of the impracticalities and sensitivities of it) from statues being torn down, speakers banned from uni campuses that they disagree with, along with this entitled idea of we need our safe spaces and are intolerant of anything we don't like now because we don't want to listen to anyone non-comforming to our stance etc., as we can't debate without getting contemptuous or violent...so much for freedom of speech. The snowflakes having a cry on social media and starting a hash tag on Twitter isn't going to change anything (despite that sounding a little brutal)...as the honest truth is that US people love their guns too much and it is highly unlikely anything is going to change on this one anytime soon. The NRA and the gun supporters know they just have to ride-it-out and when the news cycle has had enough and moves on...it goes quiet.

 

Please take this post as an overall comment rather than cherry-picking a sentence to let loose at....many nuances at play.

Again, a majority of Americans favor putting greater restrictions on guns, so what you call a “non-starter” actually stands a chance of getting started, if enough pressure is put on legislators. As for your lambasting of young people, I’m sixty years old and firmly believe that young people have a great deal to teach us, all the time -- for one thing, they are not so set in their ways or so cynically detached as to write off much-needed changes as “pretty much impossible.”

We discredit youth only at our peril. Look to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Nixon’s “silent majority” dismissed the youth of the period as drug-addled and oversexed. As it turns out, however, the student activists were quite right: after the Tonkin Gulf, Nixon’s preelection interference with the Vietnam peace talks, Watergate, etc., the nation’s leaders WERE in fact a pack of crooks and liars, and it was the children’s parents who had scales covering their eyes. Silent majority indeed.

I will quickly “cherry-pick” a few words you use. I assume, by “snowflake,” you’re referring to liberals in general (or, people who favor restrictions on guns). However, earlier, you talk about not wanting to disturb “sensitivities” -- and here it seems as though you’re referring to the sensitivities of gun fetishists who don’t want their guns taken away, and that these sensitivities must be taken into account.

Who, then, are the “snowflakes,” really?

13 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

And where do those guns in Mexico come from. From what I have read, - north of the border in exchange for drugs!

 

The second amendment reads: '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.'. 

 

America has the most powerful armed forces in the world and It no longer has a need for such a Militia. And even if there was a (perceived) need, I  do not see any connection between 'a well regulated Militia' and citizens being allowed to buy and own weapons almost as easily as a child, buying a toy. And I often think that that is a very  appropriate analogy.

 

Wake up America. Your belief in the 'right to bear arms' is as outmoded and inappropriate in the 21st century as is the belief in creationism or that radical jihadism is tantamount to 'doing gods work'.

Well said. I think, however, that many gun-rights advocates in the US fancy themselves as potential members of so-called militias IN OPPOSITION TO some imagined future tyrannous government, which would have the country’s armed forces (FY2019 budget $886 billion) at its command. I can only respond to these would-be militia members: good luck!

On 1/19/2018 at 7:34 PM, USPatriot said:

iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#

 

About 80% of the African continent has an iq of 75 or below

Growing numbers of psychologists are beginning to debunk the whole notion of IQ and the ability to “measure” “intelligence” in ways that are meaningful or useful. IQ measurement may in the end follow phrenology and other scientific dead ends into the dustbin of failed ideas. To dismiss a continent of people (specifically, black people) as somehow unworthy by citing an IQ figure is racist. Period.

If you take the son of an English lord at the age of six months and place him in the highlands of New Guinea, he will become a hunter gatherer. Likewise, take a Papuan child at six months and send him to live in an English manor house, and he may end up a Rhodes scholar. Paul Scott’s “Raj Quartet,” which centers on the predicament of the character Hari Kumar/Harry Coomer, is enlightening on this topic, although at 2,000 pages a chore to get through; the TV miniseries (“Jewel in the Crown”) is easier to digest, and also quite good!