Thakkar

oxymoron - using GOP and diversity in the same sentence

the party prides itself on exclusion

Well, to be fair, their door is wide open to clowns, misogynists and cave dwellers.

And don't forget, the religiously oppressed (but only if you're Christian, and only if you're the right kind of Christian, and not so much if you're black or gay or lesbian)

It's a Big Tent, the tent that's outside of their tent.

T

That kooky hick "earns" 80k per anum? Listen to her lil speach with Mike Huckelberry next to her... religion always good for a laugh except when it makes you want to cry.

Yeah, she gets 80k per annum. In her defense, she needs the money to meet alimony payments to three former husbands!

T

He's too stupid to realise that it's actually Iran's money.

He is very aware of where the money came from. He is also aware that they are our sworn enemy and the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. In other words, he does not give a crap.

I think you're absolutely right in that last bit.

But I'd go so far as to say he does not have a clue and does not give a crap.

I don't know whether Trump has a clue or gives a crap.

Watching Trump speeches and noting the parts where he gets the cheers, I'm inclined to suspect that his supporters can't actually tell the difference between a clue and a crap.

T

Bunning has set himself up with this precedent of how he acts in cases of contempt of court. I'd like to see his reaction when a Muslim county employee refuses to obey a court order on the grounds that it is religiously unconscionable. Mind you, how many Kentucky Muslims are county or state employees?

It's brilliant because any judge anywhere in America can point to this whenever a Muslim, or Jew or Hindu or whatever wrongly invokes their religion to defy the law and sanction them without being accused of "persecuting" a minority religious group. If they can jail a law-defying Christian, every law-defying religious fanatic is fair game. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religion.

T

'Old Testament Judge Refuses To Marry Couples Who Have Eaten Pork, Shellfish

Judge Vance D. Day in Oregon has been refusing to marry same-sex couples; one of his colleagues has a response.

Meyers said that her Old Testament court will only last as long as Judge Day's "theocratic courtroom" does. She said that "as soon as Judge Day joins the 21st century, my court room will do join him" but that "until that day comes, I will pump every bride's stomach and check every groom's feces for pork remnants" because opponents of marriage equality are, in her words, "being even more intrusive" since "I just want to see what's coming out of your <deleted>; they want to see what's in."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-judge-gay-marriages_55e9e757e4b03784e275d182?utm_hp_ref=politics

T

*satire*

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

" I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good."

You are doing the same thing most non-Americans do. You are trying to penalize legal owners of guns for the sins of the criminal element.

More gun laws are not the solution. There are some 30,000 laws on the book now, and the criminals aren't worried about them.

They don't follow the laws, hence the word, criminals.

As I have said before on this thread...enforce the existing laws with mandatory prison sentences for any crimes committed when a firearm is used.

Get the bad guys off the streets and your violent crime rates will go down.

Uh, we might need to deport a few million of those illegals to really do a bang up job.

You are not addressing the reams of data and analysis based on that data that show the causes and viable options for solutions to the problem.

I agree that more robust enforcement of existing laws would help. Some of the research papers I linked to suggest that existing laws are inadequate and ineffectual. My sense from reading news stories and talks with friends involved in the matter is that various attempts to improve existing laws or introduce new ones invariably face robust opposition from the NRA and other vested interests who are resource rich and able to lobby lawmakers and organise both real as well as astro turfed grass roots campaigns that often succeed in thwarting/severely watering down all such efforts at change.

Meanwhile the (mostly) self-organised, amateur and part time citizen groups calling for change have far fewer resources, time or legislative or lobbying expertise. It's a lop-sided struggle

Saying that the problem will be successfully tackled by locking up the usual suspects is a deflection from the issue that the easy availability and plethora of firearms exacerbates existing problems--whether those problems are drugs, crime, suicide, poverty or untreated mental illness. The discussion and tackling of those issues should not preclude the discussion and tackling of the issue of a modern, largely peaceful developed country awash in lethal weapons. It can't be taken as a normal state of affairs when a developed nation such as the U.S. has, per capita, almost twice as many guns than the next nation on that list, Yemen--a country in the stone ages and in the midst of a civil war.

T

"Meanwhile the (mostly) self-organised, amateur and part time citizen groups calling for change have far fewer resources, time or legislative or lobbying expertise. It's a lop-sided struggle"

Mostly everybody that follows the gun control issue knows you are wrong on this.

Google "Michael Bloomberg Gun Control Organizations".

That will get you started on the pathway to finding the truth. Follow the money.

Bloomberg's involvement and financial support doesn't make it any less a David Vs Goliath effort when faced with a massive, century old industry group, with far deeper coffers than Bloomberg's financial contribution.

Any compelling argument or data that guns aren't a massive problem or that business as usual is a viable solution?

T

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

" I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good."

You are doing the same thing most non-Americans do. You are trying to penalize legal owners of guns for the sins of the criminal element.

More gun laws are not the solution. There are some 30,000 laws on the book now, and the criminals aren't worried about them.

They don't follow the laws, hence the word, criminals.

As I have said before on this thread...enforce the existing laws with mandatory prison sentences for any crimes committed when a firearm is used.

Get the bad guys off the streets and your violent crime rates will go down.

Uh, we might need to deport a few million of those illegals to really do a bang up job.

You are not addressing the reams of data and analysis based on that data that show the causes and viable options for solutions to the problem.

I agree that more robust enforcement of existing laws would help. Some of the research papers I linked to suggest that existing laws are inadequate and ineffectual. My sense from reading news stories and talks with friends involved in the matter is that various attempts to improve existing laws or introduce new ones invariably face robust opposition from the NRA and other vested interests who are resource rich and able to lobby lawmakers and organise both real as well as astro turfed grass roots campaigns that often succeed in thwarting/severely watering down all such efforts at change.

Meanwhile the (mostly) self-organised, amateur and part time citizen groups calling for change have far fewer resources, time or legislative or lobbying expertise. It's a lop-sided struggle

Saying that the problem will be successfully tackled by locking up the usual suspects is a deflection from the issue that the easy availability and plethora of firearms exacerbates existing problems--whether those problems are drugs, crime, suicide, poverty or untreated mental illness. The discussion and tackling of those issues should not preclude the discussion and tackling of the issue of a modern, largely peaceful developed country awash in lethal weapons. It can't be taken as a normal state of affairs when a developed nation such as the U.S. has, per capita, almost twice as many guns than the next nation on that list, Yemen--a country in the stone ages and in the midst of a civil war.

T

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

"When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns."

They have existed for years.

They are called "nail guns". and are available at your local Home Depot without a background check.

http://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Hardware-Air-Compressors-Tools-Accessories-Nail-Guns-Pneumatic-Staple-Guns/N-5yc1vZc2cd

Show me where nail guns are used in 20,000 suicides and 10,000 homicides and numerous mass shootings every year.

See, this where debate using analogies between guns and other things gradually slips into the ridiculous and don't help in finding solutions to what is a real and deadly problem.

T

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

" Perhaps the truth has a racist bias. "

Or perhaps truth is being misused to bolster a pre-existing racist bias.

Of the 33,000 or so yearly gun deaths, about 11,000 are homicides. Most of the rest are suicides with a smattering of accidents, and police shootings. But in America even "smattering" is a huge number by the standards of most of the rest of non-war zone world. Data suggests that many gun suicides and homicides could have been avoided but for the handiness of having a gun around the house. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and confirmed by other studies http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/)

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime. The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

The 11,000 homicides are overwhelmingly intraracial--blacks exclusively killing other blacks and whites exclusively killing other whites.

55% of the above involve black victims/perpetrators and this is disproportionate to the number of blacks (13%) in the population. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/)

Crime is most often a consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. Blacks are disproportionately poor and lack opportunity. Hundreds of years of slavery and a further hundred years of Jim Crow will leave a mark that a mere two generations of questionable "equality" cannot erase. The crime in turn exacerbates the existing poverty. Take guns out of this volatile brew, and death rates can be expected to go down-- Rather than taking blacks out of the statistics, which doesn't change the situation on the ground. Fighting crime through targeted poverty reduction is much more effective (and cheaper) than through policing or incarceration. But that's a different topic.

A good article (with data links) on guns and race is a CNN piece from 2013:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

"The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people"{blacks} -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all."

Even if you take blacks out of the national statistics, white gun deaths (including suicides) in the U.S. are the highest among developed nations. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/9/e005628.full.pdf).

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the brilliance of that argument sink in. And by "brilliance", I of course mean "idiocy".

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

T

Very few are living in constant fear, but I guess that kind of stuff just goes over your head.

By your logic, we should also send the police through the neighborhoods, and have them issue a citation to anyone, with a Corvette or other high performance car, because they think those people will break the speed limit.

That's right, ignore the facts in my post and focus on the snark.

Comparing cars and guns us not logic, it's anti-logic. A more apt (but still flawed) comparison would be between guns and potentially lethal medicine. Both have their legitimate uses, but only potentially lethal medicine is highly regulated and difficult to obtain and the prescription needs regular renewal.

Arguments from analogy, while fun, are hopelessly unhelpful. Both sides of the gun debate use the gun/car analogy and both are equally unhelpful.

Drawing such parallels is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us feel better about our choices:

"Yes, guns are dangerous. So are household cleaners if ingested. If Kids can (and do) die from ingesting household cleaners, I should be allowed to keep my guns!"

I'll let the leftist Daily Kos and the Rightist Breitbart duke it out endlessly and uselessly on guns and cars.

T

*some non-relevent posts snipped from the thread

That woman is not fighting for her "religious" convictions, however misguided they may be, she is fighting to impose her stupid, bigoted faux "religious" beliefs on others. Let her rot in jail, contempt of court is an open ended sentence. I do agree, fine the county for every day they do not honor peoples civil rights and the court order. The US was founded as a secular country, no matter how the religious, extremist, dominionist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, misogynist, radical right wing tries to rewrite history. Thankfully the faux "christian" sharia has not taken over yet. Marriage is meant to be between two loving couples, period. Who in their right mind, oops sorry correct mind, would object to a couple getting married. The same people that object to mix races marrying? On that I would bet. If in fact she is a life long Demo, hard to believe, I hope she changes to Repub where she belongs. Apparently the "Southern Doctrine" hasn't gotten to her yet.

About Davis being a Democrat, I read a piece years ago about this, but can't find it now. Southern democrats from the backwoods of America are basically Republicans who never got the memo that the parties switched places in the 60s, and the bigots are supposed to be on the red team. Most of them vote Republican in national elections.

Democrat or not, she is wrong. Wrong on the law, wrong on the meaning of "religious rights," wrong to want to impose her personal beliefs on others, wrong to insist on keeping a job that she insists on doing only selectively, and wrong to withhold authorization for others in her office to do the job.

T

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

They are not the ones who used the word bloviate.

Gun nerds blowing each other about technical minutiae is not a very meaningful discussion. Lack of technical knowledge does not disqualify anyone from expressing an opinion on this subject. You have no authority to tell another person they are wrong no matter how many bb guns you had as a sprig.

The racism expressed by US gun proponents is now unfortunately standard fare on social media. It diminishes the user and it diminishes the argument.

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

" Perhaps the truth has a racist bias. "

Or perhaps truth is being misused to bolster a pre-existing racist bias.

Of the 33,000 or so yearly gun deaths, about 11,000 are homicides. Most of the rest are suicides with a smattering of accidents, and police shootings. But in America even "smattering" is a huge number by the standards of most of the rest of non-war zone world. Data suggests that many gun suicides and homicides could have been avoided but for the handiness of having a gun around the house. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and confirmed by other studies http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/)

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime. The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

The 11,000 homicides are overwhelmingly intraracial--blacks exclusively killing other blacks and whites exclusively killing other whites.

55% of the above involve black victims/perpetrators and this is disproportionate to the number of blacks (13%) in the population. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/)

Crime is most often a consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. Blacks are disproportionately poor and lack opportunity. Hundreds of years of slavery and a further hundred years of Jim Crow will leave a mark that a mere two generations of questionable "equality" cannot erase. The crime in turn exacerbates the existing poverty. Take guns out of this volatile brew, and death rates can be expected to go down-- Rather than taking blacks out of the statistics, which doesn't change the situation on the ground. Fighting crime through targeted poverty reduction is much more effective (and cheaper) than through policing or incarceration. But that's a different topic.

A good article (with data links) on guns and race is a CNN piece from 2013:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

"The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people"{blacks} -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all."

Even if you take blacks out of the national statistics, white gun deaths (including suicides) in the U.S. are the highest among developed nations. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/9/e005628.full.pdf).

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the brilliance of that argument sink in. And by "brilliance", I of course mean "idiocy".

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

T

All 17 GOP candidates are unelectable with no clear policies for helping or reason for the middle-class to vote for them.

As usual, your whole post is partisan nonsense, but this ridiculous statement stands out. The Republicans have a strong field with some very electable candidates. Competition in the public school system, restructuring the complicated tax code, and job creation policies will bolster the middle class and put the USA back on a path towards economic success.

"Back on a path to economic success"

??

You seem to be getting confused between the longest recovery from a recession in 150 years and "ECONOMIC SUCCESS". They are two different things.

I said in response:

If so, it just shows how deep and damaging the Bush recession was.

I was on my way out so couldn't give a lengthier answer. Here it is:

Besides the little matter of this being the deepest recession since The Great Depression, the republicans have screamed "NO!" To every job creation proposal put forward by Obama over the years. Meanwhile, they have proposed no, nada, nil, zilch counter proposals of their own. Because God forbid that anything positive might ensue and Obama get credit.

In fact, they had vowed from day one to do everything in their power to ensure the failure of the Obama presidency. After all the tantrums, obstructions, and outright sabotage--while offering NO counter solutions ("More tax cuts for the rich" doesn't count), it's a little rich for them to then complain about the slowness of the recovery.

T

The National Innovation Agency is indeed innovative. The innovation lies in the real life demonstration of how to deal with the fallout from a plagiarism accusation in the most ineffective, publicly embarrassing and drawn out manner possible.

T

In a paper presented two weeks ago to the American Sociological Association, the researchers concluded that "Despite having only about 5 percent of the world's population, the United States was the attack site for a disproportionate 31 percent of public mass shooters globally"

(http://phys.org/news/2015-08-percent-world-population-mass-shooters.html#jCp)

"My study provides empirical evidence, based on my quantitative assessment of 171 countries, that a nation's civilian firearm ownership rate is the strongest predictor of its number of public mass shooters," said the study's author.

The problem is the easy availability of firearms. Whether you're comparing countries or states within countries, the fact is that easy availability leads to more people with more guns. More guns leads to more gun deaths.

(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/) and (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&)

Another problem with tens of millions of households having guns at home is that EVERY YEAR (on average) a quarter of a million guns are stolen in household burglaries. Those stolen guns aren't going to be used for good or to protect true patriots from a tyrannical government. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

There's no escaping the conclusion that fewer guns would mean fewer mass shootings, fewer suicides (see my earlier posts), fewer homicides and fewer accidental gun-related deaths and injuries.

Now, YOU may be a responsible, well-trained, completely and always sane, never suicidal gun owner who should not have to give up your guns. The issue to consider is whether thousands of avoidable deaths every.single.year is a worthwhile price to pay for your second amendment rights.

T

All 17 GOP candidates are unelectable with no clear policies for helping or reason for the middle-class to vote for them.

As usual, your whole post is partisan nonsense, but this ridiculous statement stands out. The Republicans have a strong field with some very electable candidates. Competition in the public school system, restructuring the complicated tax code, and job creation policies will bolster the middle class and put the USA back on a path towards economic success.

"Back on a path to economic success"

??

You seem to be getting confused between the longest recovery from a recession in 150 years and "ECONOMIC SUCCESS". They are two different things.

If so, it just shows how deep and damaging the Bush recession was.

T

The following is a gift from me to any mischievous liberals out there :

"Kim Davis is a Democrat with a high $84,000(!) salary not commensurate with her simple job. She's just another liberal moocher sucking from the government teat."

Take that and post it at Conservative forums to make their heads explode!

You're welcome.

T

"She's not going to resign, she's not going to sacrifice her conscience, so she's doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision," said Mat Staver, one of Davis' attorneys.

Poor Davis. She'll just have to settle for the lucrative (ghost-written) book deals, talk show circuit, speaking fees and reality TV shows. Just like Martin Luther King Jr. It's almost as tragic as first century Christians being thrown to the lions.

Sad trombone.

T

Wait what happens when her son has to issue one. Should be easy to solve though since he is not elected.

With all those dads to learn from, he would've learned NOT to trust his mother's judgement. I suspect he's dutifully doing the job he's paid to do.

T

No, I think he wants honourable mention in the book deal he and his mother are anticipating, and which I think is underlying her entire stance.

Could be. I didn't think of that. Grifters will grift. She'll need the book deal even more now because gofundme and other sites have now blocked this kind of grifting since those bigoted bakers tried to make money off their religious piety.

T

The judge that jailed Davis gave her deputies the authority Davis was denying them:

MOREHEAD, Ky. The order from U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning was clear: Five of the six deputy clerks in Rowan County must begin issuing marriage licences to all couples on Friday.

The deputies agreed to Bunnings order under oath in federal court.

When the Rowan County Courthouse opened for business Friday, a clerk was seated at the counter, behind a sign that read: Marriage License Deputy.

Holding hands, James Yates and William Smith Jr. entered the media-filled courthouse shortly after 8, and began the process of applying for a marriage license for at least the sixth time.

By 8:15, the couple had obtained their license.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/04/with-defiant-clerk-in-jail-gay-marriage-licenses-finally-issued-in-kentucky-county/?tid=sm_tw

Her lawyer, as you'd expect, is contesting this even though she is now out of the picture. This is because it was never about fighting for her religious freedom (untenable as that argument was) but about denying gays the freedom to get married.

T

Wait what happens when her son has to issue one. Should be easy to solve though since he is not elected.

With all those dads to learn from, he would've learned NOT to trust his mother's judgement. I suspect he's dutifully doing the job he's paid to do.

T

After the numerous Benghazi hearings, none of which found any stink to pin on Clinton, I'm not wasting much time to follow this email non-scandal in any detail. What little I've read seems to indicate that the Republicans are just throwing as much mud as possible hoping something sticks. So far the stink it's created is mostly among people who would never have voted for her anyway. I guess it's important to keep your base energised.

But they should be careful what they wish for. If Hillary tanks, the next president could well be someone they'd hate even more: Bernie Sanders.

Women and Hispanics are a major voting block and virtually all the republican hopefuls have alienated both. There's little to no chance that any of the current crop of Republicans can win enough votes in a general election to take the presidency without appreciable support from these blocks.

While there are a lot of angry voters in America, there just aren't enough of the kind of visceral haters the Republican rhetoric is designed to attract.

T

The judge that jailed Davis gave her deputies the authority Davis was denying them:

MOREHEAD, Ky. The order from U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning was clear: Five of the six deputy clerks in Rowan County must begin issuing marriage licences to all couples on Friday.

The deputies agreed to Bunnings order under oath in federal court.

When the Rowan County Courthouse opened for business Friday, a clerk was seated at the counter, behind a sign that read: Marriage License Deputy.

Holding hands, James Yates and William Smith Jr. entered the media-filled courthouse shortly after 8, and began the process of applying for a marriage license for at least the sixth time.

By 8:15, the couple had obtained their license.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/04/with-defiant-clerk-in-jail-gay-marriage-licenses-finally-issued-in-kentucky-county/?tid=sm_tw

Her lawyer, as you'd expect, is contesting this even though she is now out of the picture. This is because it was never about fighting for her religious freedom (untenable as that argument was) but about denying gays the freedom to get married.

T

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials haU ve been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

In other words, your religious rights do not allow you to deny others their rights.

T

Their rights were not denied as they could have got the licence at another office.

The fault lies with her employers for not substituting her with another clerk that would issue permits to homosexuals. They are in charge, she was not. They didn't have to sack her, just move her to another position.

Your post calls for two answers. A general answer that applies to anyone in a government position and a specific answer that applies in the case of Ms Davis. Both draw the conclusion that what she did is wrong, illegal and assholerry.

Laws and constitutions are living documents and change over time. Civil servants pledge to uphold the laws and constitution of the U.S. when taking on the job. The law now unequivocally requires government servants in her position to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All the legal battles have concluded and the decision is in. End of story. Uphold your pledge.

Specifically, Ms. Davis was elected to her position. She cannot be moved to a different position. It's like the president deciding to move the senator from Alaska to be the congressman from Ohio.

Also note that Davis has refused to authorize anyone else from her office to issue marriage licenses.

When the performance of your job conflicts with your religious convictions, you either change your convictions or resign your job. Trying to have it both ways is assholerry of the highest order because it seeks to impose your convictions on others whose taxes pay your salary.

Her defence stands on the premise that she should not be forced to go against her religious convictions by facilitating a homosexual liaison (presumably the men have been saving themselves till after they get married). If allowed, and taking the argument to its logical conclusion, people working in government housing division would not approve housing for homosexual couples because of all the buttsex they'll be having in the apartment. DMV employees can refuse driving licences to lesbians for fear of all the girl-on-girl kissing that will no doubt be going on in the car.

Hmmm...girl-on-girl kissing in a cramped Corvette. Excuse me, I need to be alone.

T

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials haU ve been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

In other words, your religious rights do not allow you to deny others their rights.

T