If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Let me get this straight: A poll of pink panty-wearing ultra-liberal...
Crimson Panties: Source- Harvard School Colors.
History has shown you don't have to be a super-genius to do a lot of damage. Charisma, the right title or name and just a few IQ points above local average can take you to genocide (shown over and over again).
You need their ear, knowledge of their fears and how to play on them and whatever is turned off in predatory political types that stops the rest of us from hurting people on purpose (or even worse, the self-delusion that the damage you are inflicting is "good for them").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway
I think he's saying that nobody ever has a right to protect themselves with deadly force, even in the face of deadly force being brought against them, their loved ones or others. Talk about a myopic, idealized worldview.
Does this sentence even make sense, logically?: "The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss." It's only OK if people who have skill and bravery are dangerous?
My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years.