E. Pluribus Unum
Since Nov 22, 1998
< img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=400 >
< img src="https://i.imgur.com/zXSEP5Z.gif" width=400 >
Science utilizes the scientific method. The scientific method requires the conduct of controlled, reproducible experiments. Climate "science" does not utilize the conduct of controlled, reproducible experiments. Since climate "science" does not utilize the conduct of controlled, reproducible experiments it does not utilize the scientific method and is therefore not science. Any questions?
OK!! Everybody pay attention! Lesson for today: 1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth. 2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets. 3. The earth is one of the suns planets. 4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun. 5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks. Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
THE FAKESTREAM MEDIA TEN COMMANDMENTS 1-Thou shall not interfere in the killing of a baby at any age. 2-Thou shall not bear false witness without going through our producers. 3-Its not stealing if you have a grievance from prior centuries. 4-Its not adultery unless it has 4 legs. 5-Thou shall not have strange gods before Satan. 6-Honor thyself because nobody else matters. 7-Thou shall not covet the stuff I want. 8-Thou shall not confront my emotions with logic and reason. 9-Thou shall make no utterance that offends me. 10-You have a duty to die when youre inconvenient to me.
I AM STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING!!!
There are two kinds of people in this world; those who consider government to be a necessary evil, and those who consider government to be their personal Ponzi scheme.
Government is a necessary evil, but because of its potential for evil its powers must be strictly limited by the rule of law, and must be subservient to the rights of the people from whom those powers derive.
Diversity=Less white Racist=Someone who disagrees with me Nazi=Someone who disagrees with me Fascist=Someone who disagrees with me
If 'journalists' want to stop being bashed, quit dressing up like piñatas.
[CTRL] [ALT] [LEFT] are Liberals/Progressives who are too uninformed to know that they support all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto: free public education, steeply graduated income tax ("tax the rich"), confiscatory inheritance taxes, etc.
But don't you dare call them Communists!
Islamophobiaphobia - The irrational fear of exposing Mooslims as the inbred, misogynistic, child-molesting, slave-mongering, wife-beating, sexually deviant, totalitarian, terroristic, homicidal maniacs that they are.
If we must not blame all Mooslims for the actions of Omar Mateen, why is it OK to blame all gun owners for the actions of Omar Mateen?
If an adult male identifies as a woman we must accept that he is a woman, but if an adult male "identifies" as an ISIS jihadist and murders dozens of people that does not make him an ISIS jihadist, it makes him a right-wing extremist gun-nut.
Liberals demand we accept men who identify as women, but they refuse to accept terrorists who identify as Mooslim.
Democrats want you unarmed so they can kill you.
According to the CDC, 248,000+ died from mistakes/accidents by doctors/nurses in the USA. Those numbers are epidemic proportions. The same CDC states that around 8,000+ died from guns. This means you are 31X more likely to die at the hands of a State Certified health care Professional who has spent years and years studying to learn their job than from being shot. I am sorry for this woman's loss, but her doctor is more of a danger to her than a gun. Well, tbh, it's not the gun, it's the eegit holding the gun that caused the death of her son. I guess we only need one more gun law to make everyone safe.....no? One more fact from the CDC, 80% of the gun homicides are committed by one group.....gangs. So if this woman and her ilk are really and truly for stopping "gun violence", then why are they targeting the 20% (100 million+) of legal gun owners that never shoot anyone? Doesn't it make sense to go after the group causing the most gun homicides first and reduce the deaths by 80%? But I suppose if one has an agenda, the facts like these are to be ignored and are and a inconvenience to their bottom line.....no?
"Hands up! Don't shoot!" never happened. TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ'S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf (For official DOJ report, Google "DOJ Report on Shooting of Michael Brown PDF.")  The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilsons uses of deadly force were objectively unreasonable under the Supreme Courts definition. (Page 5)  when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)  Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)  Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Browns palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Browns DNA on the inside of the drivers door corroborate Wilsons account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilsons gun. (Page 6)  there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilsons account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)  autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Browns back. (Page 7)  witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)  several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)  The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. (Page 10)  evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown as a threat while Brown was punching and grabbing him in the SUV and attempting to take his gun. (Page 11)  Wilsons account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)  Wilsons account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilsons statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilsons account to be credible. (Page 16)  Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. (Page 78)  Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilsons account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)  several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. (Page 82)  there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)  There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 83)  The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said dont shoot as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said dont shoot. (Page 83)  Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. (Page 84)  Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.  In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. (Page 85)  Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. (Page 85)  we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. (Page 85)  It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard. (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm. Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended). For all of the reasons stated, Wilsons conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Page 85)  Given that Wilsons account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. (Page 86) For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
The last thing you want to do is shoot someone because there are life-changing repercussions even if totally justified. Fortunately, in 98% of defensive gun uses (DGUs), a shot is not fired. Which means that a mouse gun is as good as a cannon 98% of the time. Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed. Source: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/7.1/Gun-Facts-7.1-screen.pdf, page 21. Fact: A victim may have a strong reluctance to talk to a government agent about a firearm brandishing incident (which are 98% of DGUs) because they may not know the act was 100% legal. Source: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/7.1/Gun-Facts-7.1-screen.pdf, page 83. In other words, the 98% number is probably low.
Science requires use of the scientific method, which entails the conduct of controlled experiments yielding reproducible results. It is impossible to conduct controlled experiments on climate, much less obtain reproducible results. There can therefore be no such thing as "climate science."
The average person is in far more danger from their own government than they are from crazy mass murderers.
Governments, primarily "redistributionist" governments, murdered 262,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th century alone, and stripping those citizens of the right to own firearms was a necessary prerequisite to each of those democides.
So if you want your government to murder the millions of people you hate, gun control (AKA citizen disarmament) is the way to go.
"Willingness to remain proficient, test scores on practicles. Physical performance." https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/who-are-the-greater-threats-to-public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/ But arent police officers highly trained experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is, NO. Contrary to the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only once or twice a year! And when they get there, they seldom shoot more than one box of ammo. True, there are exceptions some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in combat shooting competition. As a result, they will likely be more effective than most of their fellow officers in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions. Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I am a professional firearm instructor, and I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, and they are not alone. As a result, civilians seldom hit innocent bystanders. But even more disturbing is research by the FBI that has shown that violent criminals (those most likely to get into a shootout with police) practice as much at TEN TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN COPS: Not surprisingly, the same study shows that the criminals are also better shots than the cops their hit rates, in actual shoot-outs, average an astonishing 70% they hit cops far more often than the cops are able to hit them. There are many reasons for the lack of training, from misplaced priorities to tightening budgets. But the simple fact is that the average civilian who has a permit to carry a handgun is far less likely to be a threat to innocent bystanders than the average police officer.
Science uses the scientific method. Climate science does not use the scientific method. Climate science uses climate anecdotes. Anecdotes are not science. Any questions?Science uses the scientific method. Climate science does not use the scientific method. Climate science uses anecdotal evicence. Anecdotal evidence is not science. Any questions?
We're spending about 3.5% of output on defense. Hardly a budget buster. During Eisenhower's terms, we spent north of 10%.
Our spending problems are rooted in the regulatory state industrial complex, the educational industrial complex, the welfare state industrial complex and now, the environmental lobby industrial complex.