zoocrew

That's not what the evidence says. Perhaps you should take it up with the experts who, in your estimation, know nothing of this. My link Here is Princeton's Michael Oppenheimer's information page. Please let us know how he responds to your inquiry. He is the expert, after all. My link Or Colunbia's Ben Orlove, another expert. My link I anxiously anticipate reading the exchange you have with these experts in the article cited above. Or maybe Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican, would be one with whom you could discuss the matter. My link

I'm certain your training far exceeds that of the experts in the field. I look forward to your refutation of the evidence. My link Would you be so kind as to let the rest of us know when your paper gets published for peer review? Thank you. Do you really understand how a scientific theory works and what it is? A scientific theory is fact, not guess.

Disdain for anything American? Would you kindly show where I have disdain for anything American?

I've never claimed to currently be a British subject.

You do know that there are vastly more scientists that accept global warming than do not, right? Really. This is not even rational to deny the science on this. May as well deny evolution and that the sun is the center of the solar system while at this ruse.

Oh, I don't. But I recognize the science. Have you ever heard of Stephen Hawking? I think I will trust him over most folks, wouldn't you? My link

I'm sorry but you are very much mistaken. The magistrate was in the English system and the Colonial American system. You neglected the local rulings of protection (especially in VA and the frontier) declarations as the Second Amendment was applied early on. You also failed to understand the writings of Locke, et.al., as the American founders discussed and used them, particularly in relation to the idea of a militia. I'm sorry, but you really are out of your league here. If you disagree, fine. I would suggest you take your arguments up with the legal scholars and history professors. I'm su

This shows you really don't understand the arguments and what global warming is, does, or how it is addressed. I'm sorry, but you really don't.

I don't think it is only a small number. There are many and they are steadfast in their delusion.

He's serious. Can you believe the tosh being set forth here? Would you want your child in a classroom knowing several young lads could conspire together to overpower the teacher and take the weapon? Seems that poster is fine with it. This is crazy. Crazy talk. Just crazy.

That does prove the point. As global temperatures rise, there are more extreme weather events. It also shows that many people who disbelieve the science really don't know what they are talking about.

The American people are reacting finally to a long culmination of events, not just one.

2012 continues the trend of warmer conditions that result in more extreme weather events. My link

Which shows you didn't read the link because it discussed the basis was in English Common Law and for a militia as the rational basis for the Second Amendment. The link is correct; the comprehension of your reading was off the mark, so to speak.

It is called context and this is another example of you not really understanding the history. I'm sorry, but you simply don't. Here is an extremely brief and most cursory examination of this history from the Howard School of Law. It is not from a lobbying entity nor a political source but strictly historical from an American Law School My link

Actually, you're seriously mischaracterising these and other statements from the early American leaders. The Second Amendment was based on English Common Law and was specifically for community protection under the direction of the ecclesiastical and local magistrate. The protection was for the community in response to the dangers of a neighboring prince deciding to attack lands, not an individual protecting himself. That is why the phrase is spliced together with the well regulated militia, since all weapons were same, be they military or for hunting. The actual debate over what is now the

Bollocks.

Oh, good God. What total tosh. The representative said something so silly that it cannot be defended. What he said was politics, not science. He was playing to his base and using the same IQ to do so.

Founded? I thought America was founded on capitalism. Or was it religion? Maybe a dozen other principles of the moment. Anyone who bought a weapon due to fear of Obama's election is just not all that bright. People with guns kill people much easier than people with any other weapon. Why America doesn't use reasonable measures to protect its people is beyond rational thought.

There are always those few who game every system and will cheat even the most enlightened of programs to help those in need. But instead of vilifying the good program, why not work on ways to stop the abuse by the few individuals? Instead of using this example as a tick in the column of Abandon the Program, why not create better enforcement so these situations are less likely to happen?

Never believe the information, the studies, the educated people ... It's all lies and conspiracies to collapse America.

New York City. Even the street vendors are wonderful.

The American Supreme Court is weighing in a unique drink driving law, namely if the suspect may be subjected to a warrantless blood test to determine the alcohol level in the blood. My link

Americans are less healthy, have shorter lives, more illness and more injury than citizens of 16 other wealthy nations. My link

Some beautiful cathedrals in Europe are endangered due to acid rain. A protective coating may be olive oil. Never thought of that. My link