Do you believe trump is actually self funded. He has gotten over 12 million in donations from his corporate buddies. Ha ha. Hillary is a life time politician. If you don't think politics is a necessary part of running the country, you know little about governance. Hillary is a hawk on defense and other then a few social issues, she and Bill could always be mistaken for conservative republicans.....just like Bill, she is a free trader and strong advocate for the free market. That is why she gets support from Wall Street , just like other conservatives do. If Wall Street doesn't prosper, the economy fails. Believe the GOP hype if you want, but check Fox business about which policy was best for the US. The Clintion economy worked better then ANY economy in the history of the country when Bill was president. That is quite a record.
Mr. Intelligent Scientist, if you don't quote me I'm unaware that you are responding to me until I read through the thread. But I've found liberals/progressives/socialists, when losing a debate, tend to do this here on purpose; getting the last word in is paramount to a leftist's self-worth, so they will even try to sneak it in to validate their belief that they are, somehow, being logical. But alas, you're not. Comparing a liberal from the WWII era to the wingers today is disingenuous at best, and just being a moron at worst; heck, even JFK would be fleeing from the wacky 'liberals' today. But repubs and dems who blindly follow their party are a big part of the problem. And you're actually correct about the negative influence religious people bring to the right; they are just as much statists as the worst leftist, wanting to use Fed.com/big government for their agenda. And don't mix up your scientists; sure, the social sciences are full of libs; hard science and engineering schools? Not so much. Back to Heller; even with your lefty goggles on, you're refusing (for some reason) to acknowledge why it was such an important decision: the individual's right to possess a firearm. As I linked from the anti-gun website and as you obviously ignored this is why liberals/progressives/socialists want to overturn it. Prior to Heller, the court had not clearly ruled re the whole militia issue, which is why the left hung on to allowing only the 'authorities' of some fashion possessing a firearm. "For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents had argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. The Heller Court rejected that line of argument. It held that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, at least in the home." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html Heller also overturned DC's trigger lock restrictions, ruling firearms in the home may be in a ready to use status. Yes, regulations and specific requirements still apply. And to be sure, the anti-gun nuts are clinging to this part of the decision, as you so aptly demonstrate...
Enjoy your status quo, then, and stop whining about corrupt career politicians. You can't have it both ways. PS: I said nothing about Trump.
"And don't mix up your scientists; sure, the social sciences are full of libs; hard science and engineering schools? Not so much. " You're wrong, again. Look at any reference you want. Scientist in all related fields are much more liberal whether it be in biology or sociology. I gave you a reference. Go to any source. You are mistaken NOT to combine behavioral science with physics, biology, geology and mathmatics as ligitimate science related studies. If you went to a school of higher learning and were exposed to psychology, sociology etc. you would know, a science degree, whether it be in biology or sciology, all used the scientific method in the search for truth. If you were into science, you would understand that Sociology is often discribed as the scientific study of human interaction. Sociology, is a unique contributor to the hard sciences because it effects and is affected by them. Science is a methodology used it the serch for truth, whether it be elvolution, physics or determining the best firearm regulations and how they most are affected by and effect human behavior. That you don't get this connection, is obvious. You are all about politics. Educate yourself so you can discuss the sciences more succinctly. Be about science and not politics. Look up the "scientific method " and you will see it's a way of determining the the best course of action, regardless of the endeavor.
My degrees can speak for themselves. Lets just say that my "least" degree is a bachelor's in Physics. Yay, me. Summa Cum Laude even! Imagine that! The one and the same as the gentlemen (Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman etc...) who invented the most powerful weapon ever made. And for one reason: To stop tyranny. Many, many well thinking individuals who have strove for a better world eventually understand the need for protection. Ben Franklin was another one of those dudes. Remember him? He was around quite early in our country, in case you haven't. Yeah, I was a liberal youth. I was swayed by "pretty" speak. But alas, I grew up and saw, the world isn't "pretty". No matter how much you wish it to be Dangosa.
The world isn't pretty. That's why I prefer to deal in truths. You get a bunch of people who have been exposed to the scientific method in determining what the truth is about gun violence, you come a lot closer then asking about solutions from the guys who make money off us by selling the guns we use. If you are a man of Science as you claim, it should make sense. The world is not a pretty place. When you die, you rot and decay and feed the flower and fauna you once feasted upon. We here have no illusions about life and death. If you worked in an OR during war time and assist a doctor with the removal of a slug from the brain stem through the eye socket, you get to know what guns do. These are liberal experiences. Where people get that liberals are not realistic and have not experienced life, are dillusional in their thinking. People of science are much more realistic about how quickly one can die a terrible death. It's all around where we live. The eagle tears at the baby loons on the lake below and the Hawks and owls feast on any thing smaller then a medium dog at sunset. The bear in the evening stroll by in the fall to get to the lake and drink and feed over our back lot. We don't go there later in the year. We make lots of noise after dark....and we carry, even in the tractor while grading or plowing the 3 miles of woods road at 12:30 am so people can get to work the next day. Half of us always carry and the other half that don't are glad we do because they know we are qualified and are always there for them. But we aren't fanatics and we don't have AR15s. This is the real militia as cops can never get to us in the winter over the steep mountain road that is snow covered during sub zero weather in the winter. We are on our own. So, please don't tell us liberals are only swayed by "pretty speak". Funny thing...it's the liberals who carry and the conservatives, two businessmen who don't know which end of a gun to hold who don't.
Probably because I never read it. I will check. Hope that I don't and find another time one of you were incorrect again.
Funny how Dagosa hates the AR rifle, the AR-15 in 5.56 NATO / .223 caliber is only one caliber of the many calibers commonly available for AR rifles. The AR platform has more parts available that any other Rifle and can be configured to any shooters needs, it is highly versatile and useful in many roles from hunting to personal defense, to long range varmint shooting such as P-Dogs, and Deer hunting, with the correct caliber choice. 6.5mm Creedmore is a great AR caliber...... .300 Blackout is a great caliber, it can be run from Subsonic with a heavy soft expanding bullet for personal Defense with a suppressor, or Supersonic expanding hunting loads specially for Deer. The Versatility really shines with made up upper receivers that can be swapped out with no tools in the field, so you can go from a personal defense rig to a hunting rig or varmint rig in seconds. All this in a super light versatile rig that is easy to repair and work on with inexpensive tooling and more varied parts than any other rifle today.
Then the AR-15 is suitable for offensive uses in an urban environment, but not for defensive purposes in the same environment?
You made the claim that the AR-15 is not replacing the shotgun as a standard issue duty weapon for police officers. You were called out on your position and told to prove your position as being accurate. And yet the standard of "need" is not legally recognized when the matter pertains to constitutional rights. The supreme court has never ruled that protections found in the constitution do not apply because no one can demonstrate that they need those protections for their everyday life.
You did it again! I'm debating liberals/progressives/socialists all over the place; when you fail to quote me and just copy/paste my response to you (or edit out the part of your post that attributes the quote to me) I lose you in the crowd. If you want to debate, we can, but please quit trying to be sneaky in order to get in the last word. You'll probably get it any, as I'm becoming quite bored with you, so hang in there. Please don't compare the hard sciences to liberal studies, social science and the humanities. They don't don't even close to requiring the same academic efforts. The hard science vs soft science debate has been going on awhile, usually with the soft science adherents claiming they too are real scientists, to the silent laughter of the real scientists. See, when your "experiment" can obtain any result you want it to, it really isn't science, is it? But this is why wingers are so attracted to this nonsense. Anyway, we are way off the topic about why you and other left wingers want to disarm America. What is wrong with someone owning a Glock with a 17 round mag? Or an AR15? And why did you equate the 2A to hunting? You realize this is simply foolish, right? The 2A has as much to do with hunting as it does with bowling, but liberals/progressives/socilaists disagree with this. Why?
Otis McDonald, lead plaintiff of McDonald v City of Chicago was a retired maintenance engineer who challenged the total handgun prohibition for the city of Chicago. The supreme court reaffirmed their prior Heller ruling in the McDonald case, and stated the second amendment applied to the states as well. The supreme court then went even further and stated in outright and explicit terms, that the second amendment could not be subjected to judicial interest balancing standards, and held against vaguely defined concepts such as public safety. It is also liberal individuals who have come up with the idea of paying violent criminals bribe money in an effort to make them stop committing crimes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1ab936-cea3-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/dc-crime-bill-would-pay-people-to-avoid-crime.html
"NEED" has always been the dirty little word hypocrites use to deny people firearms or the ability to carry them by overly strict licensing standards. I could easily have been such a Hypocrite. Yet the people you have to worry about, the ones killing people, the Gangstas, the Bloods, Crips, and Mexican Drug Gangs, here in the U.S., Those people carry and don't care much about licenses. https://youtu.be/poIf3vE4C-U
No, the original claim was made that the AR 15 replaces a shot gun. I asked that to be proven, not just in one lace but generally. No one has. We find out, that in California where the assertion was made, it has not been, cruisers carry both. I have said generally, the AR15 suplimented the shot gun in most police departments. I am right.
I will only comment on science and how it is used. Science is a methodology. It is used in many disaplines. It is the most reliable way of reaching a conclusion whether it be in a hard science like biology or other areas like sociology. They are all scientific in practice. Please, don't dwell on this becasue you can't or don't want to see the diffence. I don't accept assertions that are not developed scientifically whether it be on topics like evolution or gun control. When using polls from research centers from John's Hopkins, Harvard or the NRA, I will trust those who regularly use scientific methodology or those professional pollsters who have long term satisfactory results in many disaplines. If you don't agree, that's fine. I don't care. Sociology is not a liberal arts study. It is developed using science. You get a bachelors of science in sociology for a reason. Simple steps involving the scientific method. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
I believe your assertion is that because the police use a weapon, it must be a good self defense weapon.....I disagree. I feel Police are trained to regularly use offensive weapons with much greater range and fire power. Unless you are defending yourself from great distances, I believe the AR15 is not as good as other alternatives. If you are shooting people up to 100 yards away and calling it sell defense or home defense , I feel you need to enlist in the army, it's not traditional self defense IMO. Police weapons are used differently I feel, then common weapons for civilian use in home and self defense. My recommendations are solid, normal recommendations for the average person, I disagree that yours are... And, I feel the AR15 is a rediculuous home defense unless your home is in the Taj Mahal . I just don't see instructors or even police when asked in articles, recommending the AR15 for both pesonal defense or home defense. Now, if that is your "boy toy" and you play with it and all your $$$$$ is sunk into one, sure, use it. But if I am awaken from a sound sleep, I can respond much quicker and more safely and put more rounds on target in a house environment with a .38 revolver then with an AR15 under the bed. A cop is the aggressor and IMO, has different prioities. Maybe yours is to def end yourself over mote around your castle from a dozen terroists. I am a bit more realistic and probably much poorer then you. I don't have a castle. ;-() and my recommendations reflect it. Move on. http://graywolfsurvival.com/3295/best-home-defense-weapons/ I put a dozen more down.......
Nothing you say makes sense, you simply hate on the AR-15 in 5.56 NATO / .223 caliber.... However, the AR rifle is available in a huge variety of calibers, and for home defense I would chose .300 Blackout, subsonic a heavy frangible bullet, with a suppressor, with a laser. Flat top upper, fold down rear and front sights, flat front gas block, heavy barrel, collapsing stock.
One last point . A cop has a planned encounter and can use a specialized weapon requiring more training. A home defense situation is fluid and unplanned and could require off hand, weak hand shooting and even handing the weapon over to a less trained family member or even a guest. The universally easiest and safest alternative weapon to military and police style weapons, is the mid size, .38 revolver for home defense. That always gets my first recommendation.
