Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5). 

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.  The court stated: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: “syllabus” in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but “a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

The Militia is all of the people

The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people” (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

“The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved” (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia

The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit

We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you........

National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton, has said the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “dead to us” in his latest speech.

He labelled the court as “illegitimate” and “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us”.

Mr Bolton, who has long held an unfavourable view of the court, who was speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative group based in Washington DC, said the ICC was “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous”.

The court, established in 2002 in The Hague in the Netherlands, has the power to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court and George W Bush, in the early days of the still-ongoing war in Afghanistan, never ratified it.

The court is getting ready to investigate detainee abuse in Afghanistan, an investigation Mr Bolton called “utterly unfounded”, adding: ”We will provide no cooperation to the ICC.”

The former US Ambassador to the United Nations under Mr Bush, went on to say the “central aim of [the ICC’s] most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US”.

Mr Bolton said the court’s statute had “glaring, significant flaws” and ”constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the US”.

He also acknowledged his hecklers as Code Pink, an international charity which works to end US-funded wars, his “friends who follow me” everywhere.

Mr Bolton, following a trend in the Trump administration of criticising multilateralism, branded the ICC as a “freewheeling global organisation governing over individuals without their consent”.

He claimed American “soldiers, politicians, and private citizens” are at risk because the court assumes the automatic right to prosecute over everyone, even in countries which did not ratify the Rome Statute establishing the court. 

Israel, Sudan, Russia, and the US under Mr Bush, are four signatories of the statute who renounced their signatures and informed the UN they would no longer be subject to the legal obligations under the statute.

Mr Bolton said the US’ “unsigning” of the Rome Statute was meant to protect Americans from the “unacceptable overreach” of the court.

He cited the 2002 American Service-members Protection Act, “which some have dubbed the Hague invasion act” Mr Bolton said and also prosecution within South Africa following the abolishment of apartheid as examples of why the court was “superfluous”.

The act authorized the US president to use all means, “including force”, to shield US military members from prosecution by the ICC, he noted.

The Trump aide said US courts and the military justice system already hold all Americans to “the highest legal and ethical standards”.

Mr Bolton repeatedly hit out at the global body of which 123 countries are part, asking: “Would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations [and] entities that aren’t even states like the Palestinian authority?”

The US state department had earlier announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington, partly out of a concern over the office’s attempts to have the ICC investigate US ally Israel.

He supported the aggressive US stance against the ICC by citing internal management issues, like divulging confidential information to human rights ambassadors like actress Angelina Jolie.

Mr Bolton went as far as threatening ICC officials and prosecutors with sanctions and legal action “to the extent permissible under US law” and said those individuals could be barred from entering the country.

The overarching message of the National Security Advisor was that any perceived atrocity against humanity is to be deemed so by the people within those states, not by the international body.

“We don’t recognise any authority higher than the US Constitution,” Mr Bolton said.

The same Jews subtly irnore that their wrongful and violent creation of a Jewish State was heavily done by Jewish terrorist organisations who got away with it. We even had soldiers done in by them away back then. Disgusting history and practice by Zionism.

Islam in particular is a danger and the only consolation is that later this century we will all be gone and Europe will be an even more hell-hole as will this small overcrowded island. Islam and democracy do not go well so our future generations are going to be a desperate time. 

    ◆ None of Wilders's speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him.

    ◆ The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist.

    ◆ What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, "forget" is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Even if the Dutch politcian Geert Wilders had won and if the Party for Freedom (PVV) he established eleven years ago had become the first party in the country, he would not have been able to become the head of the government. The heads of all the other political parties said they would reject any alliance with him ; they maintain this position to this day.

For years, the Dutch mainstream media have spread hatred and defamation against Wilders for trying to warn the Dutch people - and Europe - about what their future will be if they continue their current immigration policies; in exchange, last December, a panel of three judges found him guilty of "inciting discrimination". Newspapers and politicians all over Europe unceasingly describe him as a dangerous man and a rightist firebrand. Sometimes they call him a "fascist".

What did Geert Wilders ever do to deserve that? None of his remarks ever incriminated any person or group because of their race or ethnicity. To charge him, the Dutch justice system had excessively and abusively to interpret words he used during a rally in which he asked if the Dutch wanted "fewer Moroccans." None of Wilders's speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him. He defends human rights and democratic principles and he is a resolute enemy of all forms of anti-Semitism.

His only "crime" is to denounce the danger represented by the Islamization of the Netherlands and the rest of Europe and to claim that Islam represents a mortal threat to freedom. Unfortunately, he has good empirical reasons to say that. Also unfortunately, the Netherlands is a country where criticism of Islam is particularly dangerous: Theo van Gogh made an "Islamically incorrect" film in 2004 and was savagely murdered by an Islamist who said he would kill again if he could. Two years earlier, Pim Fortuyn, who had hoped to stand for election, defined Islam as a "hostile religion" ; he was killed by a leftist Islamophile animal-rights activist. Geert Wilders is alive only because he is under around-the-clock police protection graciously provided by the Dutch government.


More broadly, the Netherlands is a country where the Muslim community shows few signs of integration. There are now forty no-go zones in the country; riots easily erupt, recently in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Nijmegen. People recently from other countries repeatedly attack Dutch-born citizens. Some are so sure of their impunity that they publish online videos of their crimes. Throughout the country, an ethnic cleansing that Europeans are too scared to name is taking place in the suburbs, and non-Muslim residents often say they feel harassed.

Non-Muslim women are encouraged by local authorities to dress "modestly". As in Islam dogs are haram (impure), dog owners are asked to keep their pets indoors. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, Islamists demonstrated and shouted slogans in support of Hamas and the Islamic State.

Daily life has become particularly difficult for the 40,000 Jews still living in the country; districts long inhabited by members of the Jewish community have become almost entirely Muslim. Authorities recommend that Jews avoid any "visible sign" of Jewishness to avoid creating "unrest". Muslim delinquency is high; the percentage of Muslims sent to jail for various crimes is notably higher than the percentage of Muslims in the population. Six percent of the country's population are Muslim; about 20% of all inmates are Muslim. None of this is secret.

The only person talking about these problems is Geert Wilders. Dutch political leaders and most journalists seemingly prefer to claim that Geert Wilders is the problem; that if he were not there, these problems would not exist. At best, they utter fuzzy words intended to show strength; at worst, they turn their back.

A large percentage of the Dutch population is anxious; the constant demonization of Geert Wilders apparently tries to indoctrinate the people to settle for less.

A year ago, London's Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan stated that "living with terror attacks is 'part and parcel of living in a big city." It did not used to be that way . Rotterdam's Muslim mayor, Ahmed Abutaleb used harsher words; he said that migrants had to "respect the law or go home".

In late January, the incumbent prime minister, Mark Rutte, published a full-page advertisement in several newspapers warning immigrants to "act normal or be gone"; he did not use the word "Islam". On March 11, 2017, four days before the Dutch elections, Rutte decided to send a "strong message" to bar Turkish ministers from speaking in Rotterdam. Voters who had considered supporting Geert Wilders voted instead for Rutte's People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD); he thereby secured a last minute win. Wilders's party came in second. The Party for Freedom (PVV) won five more seats than before, but will have only 20 seats, out of 150. Rutte's VVD will have 33 seats. The Labor party, Rutte's main ally until March 15, collapsed and is down to nine seats, its worst result ever. The left, however, is not retreating: GroenLinks, a party largely made of former communists and radical environmentalists won 14 seats,10 more than before. The Socialist Party won 14 seats. Democrats 66, a "social-liberal", "progressive" and multicultural party won 19 seats, almost as much as the Party for Freedom. A Muslim party, Denk (Dutch for "think, Turkish for "equality "), won three seats. The VNL, a conservative party established by two former Party for Freedom members, was beaten so severely it will have no seat at all.

The next Dutch government will be a coalition of four parties, maybe five, and probably lean more to the left than previous governments. It will certainly include Democrats 66, and could include Groenlinks.

In the years to come, the situation in the country is certin to deteriorate. The Netherlands' fertility rate (1.68 children per woman) is not as catastrophic as in Germany, Italy or Spain, but is far below the replacement rate. The Muslim birth rate is higher than the non-Muslim one. Dozens of churches close each year due to the rapid decline in the number of practicing Christians; the churches are replaced by mosques. Radical preachers keep coming and proselytizing; Islamist organizations keep recruiting. In a report on the Islamization of the Netherlands published ten years ago, Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote that "resistance to radical forces within the Dutch Muslim community is weak". Nothing has changed since that time.

What is happening in the Netherlands is similar to what is happening in most European countries. In the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden, the number of no-go zones is rapidly growing. Islamic riots occur more and more often. Ethnic gangs are growing more violent. Ethnic cleansing is transforming neighborhoods. Jews are leaving for Israel or North America.The Muslim population is sharply increasing. Radical mosques are proliferating. Islamic organizations are everywhere.

Politicians who dare to speak the way Geert Wilders does are treated the way Geert Wilders is treated : scorned, marginalized, put on trial.

The vision of the world in Western Europe is now 'hegemonic'. It is based on the idea that the Western world is guilty; that all cultures are equal, and that Islamic culture is "more equal" than Western culture because Islam was supposedly so long oppressed by the West. What adherents of this view, that the West is guilty, "forget" is that Islam long oppressed the West: Muslim armies conquered Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and the Balkans, and virtually all of Eastern Europe. The Muslim armies were a constant threat until the marauding Ottoman troops were finally turned away at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

This European vision also includes the idea that all conflicts can be peacefully settled, that appeasement is almost always a solution, and that Europe has no enemies.

It also stands on the idea that an enlightened elite must have the power, because if Adolf Hitler came to power through democratic means eighty years ago, letting people freely decide their fate might lead to ill.

The dream seems to be of a utopian future where poverty will be overcome by welfare systems, and violence will be defeated by openness and love.

It is this vision of the world that may have prompted Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel to open the doors to more than a million unvetted Muslim migrants, despite a migrant crime wave and an increasing number of rapes and sexual assaults. The only candidate likely to beat Angela Merkel in this year's German elections is a socialist, Martin Schulz, a former European Parliament president.

In France, Marine Le Pen, the only candidate who speaks of Islam and immigration, will almost certainly be defeated by Emmanuel Macron, a former minister in the government of François Hollande -- a man who see no evil anywhere.

It is this vision of the world that also seems to have led British Prime Minister Theresa May to say that the Islamic attack on March 22 in Westminster was "not an act of Islamic terrorism".

This romanticized, utopian vision of the world also explains why in Europe, people such as Geert Wilders are seen as the incarnation of evil, but radical Islam is considered a marginal nuisance bearing no relation to the "religion of peace". Meanwhile, Wilders is condemned to live under protection as if he were in jail, while those who want to slaughter him -- and who threaten millions of people in Europe -- walk around free.

This adolescent vision is so embedded in the minds of millions of Europeans that a lot of fast growing-up will be required to eradicate it.

Donald Trump pulled America out of the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, reimposing sanctions on the regime and delivering on an election campaign promise. 

The US president said the “defective” 2015 agreement would not stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb and signed a presidential memorandum enacting the US withdrawal.

Iran has been accused of failing to be honest about its nuclear ambitions while supporting terrorist groups and acting in an increasingly hostile way across the Middle East.

Britain, France and Germany condemned the move in a joint statement and promised to stay within the nuclear agreement claiming that it was the only way to prevent a Middle-Eastern nuclear arms race.

However, the White House announcement was welcomed by Israel - which released new intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme last week - and several Arab nations.

Mr Trump said: “It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

“The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.

“In just a short period of time the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.

“Therefore I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.”

The US president added: “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warned that if negotiations with other partners to the deal failed then the country’s uranium programme will restart.

Shortly after the announcement, there were widespread reports of an explosion in Syria, possibly the result of an Israeli strike on Iranian forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least nine pro-government fighters were killed, including members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The decision to reimpose sanctions raises fears that European companies who trade with the Iranian government and do business in America could be hit with sanctions.

Mr Trump has long been a critic of the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed by his predecessor Barack Obama and lifted sanctions in turn for the country’s nuclear programme being curbed. Mr Obama criticised the decision as a "mistake".

Mr Trump said he was open to striking a new, wider deal with Iran that would address behaviour such as the country’s ballistic missiles programme and involvement in Syria and Yemen.

The US president said he wanted a “real, comprehensive and lasting solution” that would thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

He also made clear he was delivering on a 2016 election campaign pledge, saying: "The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them."

The re-imposition of sanctions will come into effect between three and six months from now. It includes sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the country's central bank, and Iranian businesses.

European companies with significant presences in the US could be caught up if they do not curtail business in Iran before the sanctions come into effect.

Some of them were exploring ways to continue doing business in Iran after making significant investments following the announcement of the nuclear deal three years ago.

The UK, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they “regret” the decision and making clear they would remain in the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The statement said: “Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement."

It went on: “We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements.”

EU leaders are expected to meet within days to discuss how the deal can be rescued. Mr Rouhani, the president of Iran, said Iran would stay in the nuclear deal for now but was prepared to return to enriching uranium if its interests were not preserved.

He denounced Mr Trump’s speech as “psychological warfare” against Iran but said his country would not bow to pressure. “Our people have always been victorious in the face of conspiracies and we will also emerge victorious at this juncture."

But he warned: "I have ordered Iran's atomic organisation that whenever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before."

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister and a leading critic of the Iran deal, said Mr Trump had made a “brave and correct decision” to withdraw from the agreement.

"Israel fully supports President Trump's bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal,” Mr Netanyahu said in a speech moments after Mr Trump’s address.

The Israeli leader has consistently warned that the deal would pave the way for Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons and called the agreement a “recipe for disaster”.

Shortly before Mr Trump’s speech, Israel’s military said it had detected “irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria” and ordered Israelis on the Golan Heights to ready their bomb shelters.

Israeli officials have been saying for several weeks that they expected Iran to retaliate for a suspected Israeli strike against the T4 airbase in Syria, which killed seven Iranians. 

People like SmileyFaze are vast numbers in nutjobland and easily controlled by the gun lobby mentality.  For a country that boasts about itself in the world what a gun mad place it is. Oh and did you notice that the gun pusher here ignored that school massacres were "overlooked and run into 3 figures. The answer we get from the gun nots is what? Oh the right to bear arms.

Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type. (19)

Fact: Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. (20)

Fact: [glow=black,2,300]Fewer than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.[/glow] (21)

Fact: Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. (22)

Fact: Cincinnati’s review of their gang problem revealed that 74% of homicides were committed by less than 1% of the population. (23)

Fact: 92% of gang murders are committed with guns. (24)   Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crimes. (25)

Fact: Most gun crimes are gang related, and as such are big-city issues. In fact, if mayors in larger cities were more diligent about controlling gang warfare, state and nationwide gun violence rates would fall dramatically.

I really find SmileyFaze comments funny, he pays taxes for the police but he wants civilians to act as cowboys.

Schools with armed teachers, what a great idea! 
US schools might become the most secure worldwide.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m-kJe_cB-Q[/VIDEO]

Teachers and staff members in at least a dozen of Colorado’s most remote school districts are arming themselves instead of waiting for local law enforcement to rescue them in the face of a Columbine-style attack.

Those districts have employees carry concealed weapons, train like law officers and then be the first line of security should a school or classroom be targeted by assault.

Colorado law prohibits firearms in the classroom but does allow for security personnel to be armed. These smaller districts, fearing their vulnerability because of their far-flung locations, are training and reclassifying some teachers and staff as security personnel and overseeing the safe storage of their weapons.

The districts say they do so because hiring a security guard can cost more than a teacher’s salary. They also are not relying on the local sheriff’s department for help, where it could take a deputy 60 minutes to get to the front door.

“There’s a bunch of us out here in a kind of no-man’s land,” said Rick Mondt, superintendent for the Briggsdale School District in northeast Weld County.

A bill sponsored by Colorado Senate Majority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican, will allow a county sheriff to provide a handgun-safety training course to any employee of any public school who also possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Under Senate Bill 5, which had its first hearing Tuesday, county sheriffs would consult with school boards to develop a curriculum for the courses.

The bill also says that someone employed by the school district and who carries a valid conceal-carry permit can carry a concealed handgun onto school grounds, if they have received permission from the local school board.

Training courses for teachers and other staff members are minimal in some cases, Holbert said, adding that his bill will establish and bolster training standards for armed school security.

“This is not a gun bill, but a training bill,” Holbert said.

The bill’s hearing drew both pro-gun and anti-gun speakers before passing 3-2 along a party-line vote. The majority Republicans supported the measure, which now moves to the full Senate.

Critics said the bill repeats the dangerous myth that more gun training will turn English teachers and custodians into experts at close-quarter combat.

“I am going to be a kindergarten teacher and I don’t want to worry about a gun in my possession or one of my colleagues having a gun in their possession,” said Carly Dougherty, whose aunt was killed during the assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

But the bill’s proponents said having school staff members take gun training will discourage someone from targeting a classroom.

“My office is always fielding phone calls from schools and teachers who want to know how they can make the next angry, young man rethink his next move,” said Dudley Brown, head of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

The districts with the policies say they are requiring the type of training routinely required of deputies and police officers.

“People think we are just offering up guns for anybody on our staff to use, and that is not the case,” said Randy Underwood, a member of the Hanover School District school board in eastern El Paso County.

Hanover, which boasts an enrollment of 270 students, is now hammering out its policy that security will be provided by staff members with a conceal-carry permit who undergo annual training that meets school insurability standards.

Underwood voices the thoughts of rural school officials who say even the hint that some school personnel are willing to draw weapons to secure the safety of students will make a prospective attacker think twice before acting.

You should be concentrating on the 40 million plus who are poor on food stamps the 2 million plus in jails the daftness of death sentences lasting a decade and more. The revolution is long gone as is 1813 and you should have learned to try and be progressively adult and leave crime and issues to the police and so on.

Well no bother getting anything including machine guns in nutjobland Belfrager and just look at the numbers they shoot to death annually. More and more guns bought as "security" and the death numbers stay high. What a place.

While Americans are anxiously awaiting full details of the tax bill now being finalized in Congress, German economists are warning that the changes sought by President Donald Trump mean that significant amounts of new investment and jobs will shift from Europe to the United States.

“The tax competition will have a new dimension,” said Christoph Spengel, chairman of the corporate tax department at the University of Mannheim. Mr. Spengel, who is also a research associate at the Center for European Economic Research, and a group of tax experts at the university have done a detailed comparison of the two countries’ tax systems and published a report under the heading, “Germany loses out in US tax reform.”

Clemens Fuest, who heads the Ifo economic think tank, also said he believed German business would suffer. “Investments and jobs will migrate to the US,” he said.

(CNN) New body camera footage captures the tense moments before an Arizona police officer shot an unarmed man dead last year, as the man begged officers not to fire.
Police in Mesa, Arizona released the footage last week, after a jury acquitted former Mesa officer Philip "Mitch" Brailsford of second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter charges related to the January 2016 shooting of Daniel Shaver, of Texas.

Brailsford shot Shaver after police responded to a call saying a man was pointing a rifle out of the window of a La Quinta Inn. The former officer testified he believed Shaver was reaching for a gun in his waistband as he moved toward officers, CNN affiliate KTRK/KPHO reported. No weapon was found.........

The one you described I hadn't seen.....provide a link so we can all see.....

......It begins to affect others when they over there bear arms, it is a constitutional right to them, and they think nobody else has such right and that any differing viewpoint of this matter is a sign of being a wimp etc. It is a real detriment to communication.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2017-11-20, 05:00:43

RJ, Smiley makes a valid point: Why has increasingly restrictive regulation of guns led to more gun violence?

Where? When? In USA? Well, it's just the way you like it over there. By the way, it's much more efficient to shoot yourself than someone else. Closer target, better hit rate. You don't want to be a wimp and miss your target.

What you really object to about the U.S. 2nd Amendment is simple: You're a wimp. You've always been a wimp and a slacker:
You do what you do on-line because that's all that's left to you...

.....We do not have the tradition that exists over the pond even yakking about gun issues especially in the England part of GB.  The comparison is totally different and we do not have........

.........OVER 2 million in jails, shootings in 5 figures annually and mass shootings as regular as clockwork........

You haven't a single clue on why UK firearm crime rate has jumped by 27%, & what needs to be done to reverse the trend.............no, but you seem only to know how to point the fingers at everyone else......when now your chickens are coming home to roost..........& you haven't a clue on what to do.