Here's a true statistic to go with your white power propaganda numbers...in any random altercation between a black man and police where someone dies, 97% of the time it's the black man dead.

Silly red neck...constitutional rights are reserved for whites in America....at least in practice.

I have to disagree that getting instructions from the top and following them to a T makes them safe. How many get killed not even knowing a cop is around, how many times have we seen cops show up and instantly shout "gun" then empty their clips, only to find no gun?
I say keep your gun in your hand highly visible, tell them out loud you have it, and if the cop reaches for theirs, use it.
Don't ever fall for the bullshit "I'm taking your gun for your safety, OK?" unless you get to take their gun for their safety first. Their racist fear doesn't trump your rights.

Cops are a gang of terrified thugs, not a peacekeeping force by any stretch. How many videos in just the last two weeks of brutish bully cops beating and shooting peaceful men women and children, shooting them point blank in the face, violently dog piling them while they're standing still, unarmed, hands raised, peacefully being interviewed on live TV...how many of these attacks were stopped by "good cops". Statistically, none. How many were excused with lies by all cops on scene before they knew they were filmed? 99.99%. Where are these mythical creatures called "good cops" when they're so desperately needed to stop the evil ones? Typically, they're nowhere.

You save all your empathy for right wing fools who push lies and the fools who accept it as gospel, right?

Truth?!? LMFAHS! These blatantly racist fake figures, which you misquoted from Trump tweeting some long ago debunked unofficial propaganda, are just wrong and earned him one of thousands of "pants on fire" awards.
*facepalm
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

The sad part being the honest numbers were bad enough to make the point, so why exaggerate? Probably because Bunker Boy just can't let any truth pass his lips, and you can't help but exaggerate on top of his outright lies.

Every time, buddy. You only reference already debunked, clearly fake statistics. Statistics that always contradict the official numbers. Is it because you're only looking where Twitler tells you to? Just throwing a handful of conspiracy word magnets at a fridge would have you accidentally right more often than you are. I can't believe that's not on purpose....but I can't discern what purpose it might serve.

*quality dissection of what "a few bad apples" means in context.
This entire crop is spoiled, tainted by the toxic sludge oozing from the bad apple at the top all the way down.

Are there some police, even most, who would never attack citizens, arrest someone they know to be innocent based on race, or falsify charges? Absolutely. Unfortunately there's a statistical vacuum when it comes to policing themselves. That makes them all accessories after the crime under the law, and as a fact.
The bad apples couldn't represent the police if the police fired them with permanent nationwide records so they can't just move to the next police force after being fired for crimes. Instead they shield and hide those rotting apples behind their blue wall, tainting themselves in the process.

When I see an Apple going bad, I throw it out immediately...I don't wait until it's become slimy and furry, spoiling all my fruit.

You aren't serious, are you? To compare what a white family might say to their teenager to what is said to a black teenager?

Have you seen or read anything about what it means to be Black While Driving? Seen the statistics?

Bullshit you liar.
Trump blocked relevant witnesses, not the house. He had no credible witnesses on his behalf because none exist. The witnesses he wasn't allowed were the Bidens, because even if every baseless accusation he made against them was true (spoiler, not one is) it's 100% irrelevant. What HE did is the issue.

Bob, you and Trump's position on anyone not kowtowing sufficiently and loudly exclaiming how amazing his (non existent) clothes are is "fuck them". Always has been. Hardly possible to represent America when you say 2/3 are America haters that should be hanged for treason.

The democrats wanted more evidence from day one, and the Whitehouse used every possible excuse to deny them ANY. I can't wait for 2021 when republican control is lost, barring more massive Republican voter fraud (which has been perpetrated by a republican in every intentional case found this century- including all actual examples Trump's investigation found from 2016; Terri Lynn Rote, Phillip Cook, Audrey Cook, Gladys Coego, and worst ever-Leslie McCrae Dowless who collected hundreds of absentee ballots and filled them out for Republican candidates, forging the signatures of hundreds of voters in her position as paid political operative for the Trump supported Republican candidate Mark Harris). When the house, Senate, and executive are all democratic and republicans are silenced with their sycophantic and cowardly abdication of duty, civility, and sanity to someone who doesn't comprehend one of those concepts a whit, I'm sure you'll finally understand how bad that is.

The Senate didn't listen to shit. Republicans, save one, were prepared to acquit without any evidence or testimony. Liar.

The theatrics are from Republicans....all non cult members see that clearly, that's why 2/3 of Americans supported his removal, and the other 1/3 wouldn't convict him of murder if he shot Romney in cold blood during the state of the union. The president being an unimpeachable king is what the constitution was designed to prevent, and the precedent the Republicans set here will end our country if it's the new norm. Start learning Mandarin....oh sorry, forgot that the "L" word is a swear word to your ilk.

It's the entire US that lost, something you'll understand when the next president breaks the law and Republicans are ignored when they complain. The state of the union is "crumbling into dust". The divider in chief has seen to that. "Winning!". *facepalm

BTW, you're also wrong about the dumbasses (again, one word not two). Trumpsters are the uneducated by and large, and a vast majority of them (59%bad/33%good) believe higher education is a bad thing.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education/ It's likely that statistic is due to the fact that most of today's Republicans couldn't get into college because most of you are too dumb to meet the requirements, and those who aren't, like my family, have left the party in disgust.

Republicans are the moronic anti American anti education anti fact anti science anti fiscal responsibility anti choice bigots too stupid and gleefully ignorant to know they're stupid ignorant morons. There's absolutely no question or doubt among those who aren't willfully ignorant, who believe in fact, or who believe in education.
Sad.

newt just contributed:

Extra Word Count Statistics
Syllables 535
Sentences 17
Unique Words 202 (64%)
Average Word Length (char) 4.9
Average Sentence Length (word) 18.5
Monosyllabic Words (1 syllable) 170
Polysyllabic Words (≥3 syllables) 53
Syllables per word 1.7
Paragraphs 6
Difficult Words Readability level 91 (29%)


And all you can say is "thanks" with a lowercase "t" which is an insult to the "!"

How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

No, I don't talk as if there has never been an amendment. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that since I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Changing the constitution is very difficult. It was made that way on purpose. Article 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability."

Whether you believe it is unsupported or unpopular has no bearing on anything. Just to be clear, I never wrote or implied they don't have the ability, only that the constitution prevents "government from effectively regulating arms."

The party in power may not fully represent your views, or the views of the people who directly support the party, no party ever does. But enough Americans wanted them in, and not the opposition who resoundingly lost, that they rule the roost. Considering how many Americans don't vote there is no such thing as a majority of Americans - there can only be a majority of those who vote. And this is not a measure for winning an election. The measure for winning is electoral college votes. The rules were set, one side played it better, the other side lost and whined about the rules.

"You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!"

I'll answer straight up. You. You are acting dumb. And paranoid. I don't know who those people are. Your "popular opinion" of what? I literally gave links to authoritative statistics for anything under contention. You need to see someone about your mental state.

Try to make people feel welcome. There is a reason this website is sinking into obscurity (look at the rankings).

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

If the left didn't care about people getting shot and killed, why would they care about guns? Duh.

99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities?!
Site your source.....I know you can't, you flushed already. The actual number is 40-<60% of those convicted of illegal shootings admit they used illegally obtained guns, the number varying by state, higher where laws deny violent convicts the right to own them, lower when they can. As to your ridiculous 99% Democratic city claim, you're just repeating a long ago debunked lie from a failed Republican candidate 5 years ago. Here's some data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago
Note how many Republican led cities are worse than Chicago.

99% are non NRA members? Maybe, but >99.5% of Americans are non NRA members, most NRA members quit the organization decades ago like I did, but are still listed as "members". Since most americans aren't members, actually the NRA gave a pitch to prospective sponsors in which it said that about half of its then-4 million members were the “most active and interested.” (the other 2 million are often dead members, ex members, or those given free but unwanted memberships with a purchase) so there MAY be 2 million, but that's likely still a massive overestimate, meaning using their own numbers, active NRA members are far more likely than the average person to murder with a gun IF your 1% guess is right (and there's absolutely no way to know, those statistics aren't kept).

Yes. Mass terroristic attacks with or without guns get more attention than individual personal attacks. Odd, you think that's proper if it's not a right wing terroristic attack, like most today are.
Suicides account for >60% of shooting deaths but get zero coverage. Why not whine about that?

Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?

2017 had nearly 40000 gun deaths, the highest since 1968.

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.