birdog1960

i fear that we aren't as evolved as some think from animals. there's ample evidence to support that contention. how do you expect things would go if monkeys were given automatic weapons to play with? especially if they disliked or distrusted their handlers/rule makers...

the first time i went hunting i was pretty certain that i wouldn't kill anything. just not my scene. and then the instincts kicked in…the dogs found a bird..and i shot and killed without hesitation. speaking with many others about this, i've yet to find someone that found this unusual.

he certainly feels the possibility is up for discussion. he considers it a possibility. CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute? SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

you don't see absurdity in the suggestion that shoulder mounted missile launchers should be available to the general populace? part of his documented argument involves maintaining the option orf rebelling against the gov't. it's right there in black and white. if that's the goal then much more radical laws must be written or interpreted.

here, i'll make it easy: Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take.

i can be trusted with a 12 gauge shotgun and would gladly submit to a screening process before taking possession. i wouldn't trust myself with an automatic weapon designed for killing humans nor would i desire one. and i wouldn't want anyone to have access to any gun without a thorough background check. read the economist article i linked. can't articulate it any better.

this is clever. but show me where a supreme court justice champions another cause so specifically and in such a radical way. now that would be really clever.

i told you what i define it as. you don't like the answer. the paranoid wannabes is clearly an opinion. i'm not sure it's possible to quantify paranoid wannabes. it's kinda like obscenity and scotus' definition of it: you know it when you see it.

maybe you'd enjoy the economist article more.

does gun lobby and those that support it work better for you? here, edumicate yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gun-lobby/

gun owners and the gun movement as i perceive its meaning are 2 very different things. i'm a gun owner. i wouldn't go anywhere near a meeting of the gun movement. for reference: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights. scalia is quite possibly the emporer of the gun movement.

the words "largely" and "some" appear to have escaped you.

i don't think so. he pm'ed me complaining that it was deleted. i thought it might have been this link http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lewis+prothero+youtube&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=669CCC4B863818589235669CCC4B863818589235 that caused it.

i assumed he was referring to the o'reilly/williams thread that disappeared off the site.

sigh…it's a commercial enterprise. it's not a democracy. we aren't being forced to post here. but i must admit that it was a curious decision.

other than the bolded rhetorical question, i applaud your efforts here. the gun community are largely paranoid wannabes that have yet to achieve their desired places and secretly believe they can achieve them by force and even revolution if necessary. some eagerly await anarchy and the chance to utilize their finely honed survivalist skills. the movement, at it's heart, is largely about the possibility of mass treason. it's not about hunting rifles.

Dr Soon works for the smithsonian. that's a gov't agency last i knew. this story is akin to an NIH researcher giving pharma sales dinners to community doctors. of course that would never happen. at least we can formally confirm one industry that's funding the "scientific" denier movement.

just watched dr zhivago for oscar's week. i laughed at that. kinda like the guy that shoveled shite in the boxcar on the freezing train through the gulags, with a kerchief over his face, in the stench, when he laughed...

i think you might want to check the demographics on the debate before you repeat your "other peoples money" mantra.

and the same for a journal like science or nature? you folks are delusional. they are read by smart people seeking more knowledge. they don't need to fabricate or sensationalize.

you think national geographic is only concerned with mouse clicks and eyeballs? i think you have it confused with the cartoonish books and magazines you likely frequent. no it's not about fear mongering and profiteering. most liberals would be willing to spend large sums in their own tax dollars to attempt to reverse what is happening. this is about stupidity and pandering to it.

national geographic is correct. there is a war on science. on al the things mentioned. and there needn't be. as groggy says, most if not all, of the issues can be rectified and aligned with all but the most extreme of religious viewpoints. but that is exactly what we are dealing with and they have declared war on science. the left is, in my view generally more flexible on these issues. i don't believe anyone is saying that climate change is 100% man made. i certainly have no problem with believing evolution is divinely designed. gmo's. i honestly think we'd n be better off not treading down that slippery slope of genetic manipulation but i can see the counter argument. i don't see this as a religious issue. but i can see where extremists might. and vaccinations comes down to the simple belief that the good for the overwhelming many outweighs the very questionable good of the few. even fundamentalist christians should agree here. the old testament is full of dietary and infectious disease (e.g. leprosy) dictums to protect the many from the few.

handley is in there too. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice... jeb must think republican voters are mostly idiots. oh, wait.

maybe not: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-leading-cable-analyst-says-its-time-for-investors-to-move-on-130517256.html Many investors believe cable providers will be able to make up for revenue lost from cord cutters by increasing rates on Internet service, either by charging consumers more or by extracting fees from content providers like Netflix (NFLX). Moffett's concern is that under the FCC’s new rules, the companies won’t be able to make that shift. “The obvious risk is that carriers’ ability to monetize traffic (through either of the above mechanisms) will never be permitted,” he writes.