Wow!
Again!
Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna claimed to be Jewish, but isn't, and instead is actually the granddaughter of a Nazi.

She pretended to be Jewish in part to defend MTG from her anti semitism like blaming “Jewish space lasers” for West coast forest fires, saying “if she was an anti Semite, why would she support me?”…the answer ….because your family are really catholic Nazis not Jewish as you falsely claimed.

What is it with Republicans pretending to be Jewish lately? It’s a pattern.

I watched her stream last night, along w/ 400,000+, and enjoyed how fun and down to earth she seems. She played for three hours and was pretty much a try hard. I approve and encourage all politicians to play video games and stream.

If you are interested in her Twitch channel or checking out the complete stream https://www.twitch.tv/aoc
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota also played https://www.twitch.tv/ilhan

while I am absolutely delighted to watch both the democratic and republican parties LOSE their minds over AOC,and watch them bumble and stumble all over themselves to discredit this 29yr old Latina spitfire.

the political establishment continues to miss the plot,because they live in their own tiny,elitist bubbles.

every time they attempt to marginalize her,attack her outright,shame her,belittle her...
her numbers go up.
the republicans try to attack her by exposing her ideas as laughable,but what they are really doing is campaigning for her.
she literally gets more popular every time FOX news has ben shapiro on to "expose" AOC as the "loony left".

and the democrats may actually be MORE afraid of AOC than the republicans!
they are trying to primary her out of her seat,which he has only been in a few weeks.
which has seen AOC's war chest boom with private,small amount,donations.


they (meaning the establishment,corporate lackeys in congress) along with their corporate media stooges.

are doing their best to paint AOC as a "kook" as a "crazy" as somehow not being an actual representative of what normal folk want in a representative.

just like they did with nader,paul,sanders..


but it looks like the American people are finally on to the games of the kleptocrats.

and AOC has become the youngest and most popular congresswoman..ever.


because AOC Is not a kook,or a crazy.

she is whip smart and politically savvy.

and in five minutes she lays out the ease of corruption in our government.


suck a dick trumpters!

*promote

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Your video, Congresswoman & NSA Scandal takes backseat to Bieber Arrest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, TYT | Congresswoman's Voicemail: Where's My Bribe?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

and cinema, and college, and congresswoman, and immigration centre, and ex-workplaces, and mosque, and abortion clinic, and Luby's cafeteria, and military base, and....

"Who is saying that congresswoman?"

"Well, you know, I'm not ah, det, tha, these are actual friends on the other side"

Beautifully put.


The only way to get rid of Obama's Health Care Fascism Bill is to get rid of Obama? NO, THAT'S CRAZY TALK!

What is her point? That the contrived political structure is based on 2 sides sabotaging each other and pointing their fingers at the other side come election time?

@blankfist

Neither of us here is attempting to do a rigorous statistical analysis.

The question still stands though.

What explains your incredibly high gun homicide rates, and for that matter your incredibly high homicide rates overall? If it's not gun ownership as I say, what is it?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Frankly, all I see is you dodging the question here.

@GeeSussFreeK

Yes you can still commit murder without a gun, and if you look at what you've linked to, you'll find that the US is 24th in the world by murder rate per capita alone. The next developed country down is Finland with 66% of your murder rate. That country in itself is an exception though, the next country with anywhere near your GDP per capita is France with just 40%.

So, what makes Americans more violent?

Could it just be possibly be that a gun empowers would-be criminals to commit a crime? Because basic logic tells me that guns stack situations in favor of the criminal.

In your average crime, say the armed robbery of a convenience store, the assailant clearly has the upper hand. He is mentally prepared, presumably somewhat desperate and has the gun out ready to fire. The victim, say, the counter attendant, who is being paid minimum wage has not the slightest interest or need to risk his or her life. At best he or she has a firearm stowed away under the desk, but in what position are they to use it? Would you really dispute that this is far more a typical situation than the reverse?

Is the shooting in Tuscon not the perfect example? Here was a congresswoman and her staff, some of which including her I would presume were pro-gun. Had they been carrying guns with them, do you think that they would have anticipated and prevented Loughner taking the first shot? Do you think any of them would have been mentally capable in that scenario (had they been carrying a gun) to use it to valiantly defend themselves before Loughner had emptied his clip? Because I kind of doubt it.

Now you could say that criminals will find a way to acquire guns on the black market. This is probably true. In a country like America with 89 per 100 guns, no legislation will magically change this reality. That's why my point is high levels of gun ownership among countries cause crime.

This is also why looking at slightly different gun restrictions in states is nonsense, no doubt message multiplied by the NRA. Do you really think with comparable ownership rates, and with ultimately porous borders between states as a whole that it matters two hoots whether one state has been tougher than another for a few years?

Analogies suck because they're not usually comparable. Replace drugs with private nuclear weapons like NetRunner mentioned. Do you still think it's a fair comparison?

The very reason that guns are entirely different to drugs is they are prone to impact a wider group of people. Soft drugs are generally innocuous. Hard drugs are largely self destructive but often have impacts on the individual's wider family. Guns are efficient, purpose designed, killing machines designed, and often enough used in mass violence. By that alone, the analogy is flat.

Oh, and if you're taking a libertarian position here with that analogy by the way, you first have to show me guns don't violate the individual rights of others, since as far as I'm concerned the numbers suggest they clearly do.

So again I ask, why are Americans twice, 3 times, or 4 times more violent than others in comparable developed countries?

Riposte?

<^In this circumstance it did discriminate, though.>
I don't see how indiscriminately firing at a line of people is discriminate. Do you mean it was discriminate because a democratic congresswoman was targeted? There is absolutely NO evidence that she was targeted because of her political party. If a meteor had hit her and killed her, it would have been just as discriminate, I suppose?

And if anything portrayed in those links would have happened do you actually expect that people wouldn't have brought it up? Seriously? It's national news and it's important to discuss even if you don't agree.

And by the way, you're the one bringing attention to the video you're complaining about by posting a link to it in an unrelated thread...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who here is responsible for returning ancient sifts like this to the top of the queue, in order to join the lamestream media in trying to pin the murderous actions of a lone, mentally-ill vermin on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or the Right?
You're better off with a different approach. Seriously.
How quickly we forget:
Hanging Palin in effigy

"Mockumentary" about Bush being assassinated
Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years

The days of the left fooling too many people too often via media monopolies are over. Someone tell that punk Soros on your way out.

I'll ask my brother to ask his friend. Netrunner says poli sci folks are also saying legislative obfuscation is at its highest since the Civil War, also. I've asked my brother to ask his friend about this, too.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Really interesting comment, bareboards - could I trouble you for a link to a paper your friend might have about your point on rhetoric?

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Now for some facts. I am a fan of facts. I just got this email from my extremely conservative Mormon brother, as part of an email exchange about the topic of scaling back the rhetoric:

I have a friend at Church who is pursuing his PhD in Political Science at UC Davis. I asked the question about the level of rhetoric because of your observations.

Poly Sci guys find ways to collect metrics and quantify everything. He stated that their metrics suggest this is the most divisive dialogue since the civil War.

I honestly didn't expect that answer. I thought it had always been bad and I was just not sensitive to the issue.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^bareboards2:

Poly Sci guys find ways to collect metrics and quantify everything. He stated that their metrics suggest this is the most divisive dialogue since the civil War.

As an aside, the Poli Sci guys are also pointing out that the level of legislative obstruction is also at levels not seen since the run up to the civil war.