Right Wing Revolution Begins

[kallend 1,623]

Channman

******>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

*********>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

What does this prove?

here's a clue . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

************>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

What does this prove?



It proves that Channman got his numbers wrong - by a lot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***************>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

What does this prove?





It proves that Channman got his numbers wrong - by a lot.

I was asking what your numbers prove - I wasn't referring to the questions or the validity of his numbers, but someone as smart as you claim to be already knew that didn't you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

******************>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

What does this prove?





It proves that Channman got his numbers wrong - by a lot.

I was asking what your numbers prove - I wasn't referring to the questions or the validity of his numbers, but someone as smart as you claim to be already knew that didn't you?

My post was simply a correction of Channman's grossly incorrect numbers. There was nothing in it to suggest otherwise.

If you're trying to read anything else into it, you are deluding yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

*********************>Alcohol prohibition doesn't work...

But age limits and laws against drunk driving seem to.

with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success. An inconsistent one, to say the least.

Gun death's in the US were roughly 10,950 most of those more than likely SUICIDE.

Traffic deaths in 2013 roughly 35,200. I thought that number would have been more but that was the number I found in a quick search.

For 2011, the firearm homicides were 11,101, the firearm accident deaths were 851, and the firearm suicides 19,766. Total deaths from all causes due to firearms in 2011 was 32,163.

There were also 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009.

What does this prove?





It proves that Channman got his numbers wrong - by a lot.

I was asking what your numbers prove - I wasn't referring to the questions or the validity of his numbers, but someone as smart as you claim to be already knew that didn't you?

My post was simply a correction of Channman's grossly incorrect numbers. There was nothing in it to suggest otherwise.

If you're trying to read anything else into it, you are deluding yourself.

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

******

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Yep
so what do you propose?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

rushmc

************

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Yep
so what do you propose?

Comprehension goes a long way. As he had said, he agrees with Scalia. Is that hard for you to understand?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 18]

freethefly

***************

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Yep
so what do you propose?

Comprehension goes a long way. As he had said, he agrees with Scalia. Is that hard for you to understand?

I know what Scalia said
How do you get there?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

*********

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Do you agree with all of it? Do you agree with Most . . . Some . . . every word?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

freethefly

***************

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Yep
so what do you propose?

Comprehension goes a long way. As he had said, he agrees with Scalia. Is that hard for you to understand?

It is very hard for the "honor student" to understand because he doesn't actually read what he responds to, and he usually doesn't read the articles that he cites in his posts. Which is why he often cites articles that don't say what he thinks they say.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******************

So you have NO anti second amendment tendencies whatsoever?

Nope.

I agree with Scalia's interpretation of it in the SCOTUS majority opinion, which defines its scope.

And in case you forgot, it is the SCOTUS that tells us what the Constitution means. Not you, and not the NRA.

Now all we need is some teeth so that the SCOTUS approved limits can be properly and effectively enforced, instead of the lame laws on the books right now.

So, what limits do you propose?

Reading is important. You should try it sometime BEFORE pressing "Post".

I AGREED with Justice Scalia's majority opinion.

Yep
so what do you propose?

Comprehension goes a long way. As he had said, he agrees with Scalia. Is that hard for you to understand?

It is very hard for the "honor student" to understand because he doesn't actually read what he responds to, and he usually doesn't read the articles that he cites in his posts. Which is why he often cites articles that don't say what he thinks they say.

Do you agree with all of it? Do you agree with Most . . . Some . . . every word?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,400]

>with twice the fatalities as guns, that's an interesting measure of success.

Deaths from drunk driving in 2012: 10,000
Deaths due to firearms in 2012: 30,000

[billvon 2,400]

>If banning late term abortions is good, perhaps two more laws banning late term
>abortions is even better

Happens all the time. The Supreme Court says that states have the right to place their own restrictions on late term abortions, and states often pass such laws - even change then on occasion. (One of the reasons they change is that the Supreme Court set viability as the standard for "late term abortion" and as medical science changes, many states change the date they define for late term abortion.) I assume you are OK with that.

>we really need to stick with proper training and respect of the youth (and
>today....parents) about safe gun ownership.....

Expecting youth to respect _anything_ will lead to some spectacular failures, although it will surely help overall.