Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#54546 10/20/15 01:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
the medical industry in the US claims apx 98,000 lives per year vs the gun industries apx 11,000 deaths by homicide

500 deaths by accidental shootings per year.

but you never do hear a word about the preventable deaths caused by the medical industry only the gun industry.

lets point to the 500 accidental shooting rate for a comparison because the 98,000 medical industry rate is proposed to have been accidental ...

this brings into view that you are 396 times more likely to
to be killed by some medical worker or professional than you
are to be killed by a gun owners gun.

apx 100 million people in the US are gun owners.

apx 11 million people in the US work in the medical industry.

focusing only on the odds of becoming a statistic in a accidental death in the US when comparing the gun industry
to the medical industry.

guns -----------> 200,000 to 1

medical --------> 112 to 1

so its much safer to be in the close proximity of a gun owner with his loaded gun than to be in the close proximity of a medical worker with his/her loaded education whilst he/she is working.

so its 1,785 times safer to be in the close proximity of a gun owner and his loaded gun than it is to be in the close proximity of a educated medical worker.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Perhaps you should have the NRA point the gun control lobbyists towards Obamacare, as a government assisted genocide program, based on the statistics of who is more dangerous to the public. Gun manufacturers and their clients vs. the medical industry.
Maybe they (ya know they who control everything) allow both to exist simply to thin the herd.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
That might help if the NRA only had to focus on convincing
intelligent minds which industry is more harmful to the public
but were talking about politicians here , and they only concern themselves on what they are allowed to concern themselves with.

and at this time they must only be allowed to think about gun control and the dangers of not having gun control , that's really obvious with these statistics and the nothing being said about them.

perhaps the medical industry is like you suggest , a control method used for population control , and they fear that people who think might some day realize whats goin on and they might have loaded guns when they do find out.

would you want to work in the slaughter house when cows gain the ability to own and operate firearms?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
the medical industry in the US claims apx 98,000 lives per year vs the gun industries apx 11,000 deaths by homicide

Can you provide a credible reference to that 98,000 lives per year lost? If you can I will go ahead and see if I can figure out how to state my doubts about the comparison you are making.

I am not necessarily for gun control. I really don't have a solid position on it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul


perhaps the medical industry is like you suggest , a control method used for population control , and they fear that people who think might some day realize whats goin on and they might have loaded guns when they do find out.

would you want to work in the slaughter house when cows gain the ability to own and operate firearms?

Not exactly suggesting there is purposeful intent, but rather a lack of responsibility or accountability, being that there are instruments of deniability when it comes to death within the medical community. Such as waivers and or forms of indemnity that distance a patient from those that place themselves within the system for the care of the public.

The media is suggesting there is legislative action taking place to make any gun related death accountable to any person or entity related to a gun. That would be the manufacturer, the sales person or company that sold the gun, the person firing the gun and even the ammunition company which manufactured the bullet that happened to be fired by the person who used the gun to kill.

Imagine if the medical industry was put under the same scrutiny. Yet they're not. That industry becomes less and less involved with anything related to industry accidents or malpractice as the laws turn the attention towards the fragility of the patient and whatever universal forces may be responsible (as long as its not the institution or its constituents).

I lived with a girl who was a nurse at a hospital in Florida. One of her colleagues (an administrative nurse) checked in patients prior to surgery, making sure that all their information prior to their time in the hospital was available to reference by the doctors and nurses attending the patient. Checking blood type, allergies to medications, vital statistics, family history etc. etc. This nurse decided to skip the formal procedures and simply duplicated the form of a previous patient and applied it to an incoming patient because she didn't want to be bothered with the duty.
IF the media was to exaggerate the story as being typical to all medical facilities the way the exaggerate gun facts imagine what that would do to the faith people have in the medical system (little as that already is).

There are gaps in every system. Villains in every corner of every side that presents itself.

What seems to be important is not the truth, but rather whatever grabs the attention and ire of the public.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
this is the page I found the 98,000 on but the page also
has estimates between 210,000 and 440,000 per year.

so I used the low number of 98,000 in my post.

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals

heres a 195,000 a year estimate from a medical news site

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

if the 440,000 is a more correct number then ...

focusing only on the odds of becoming a statistic in a accidental death in the US when comparing the gun industry
to the medical industry.

guns -----------> 200,000 to 1

medical --------> 25 to 1




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Thanks, that was just what I needed. Now let's look at exactly what that means.

Originally Posted By: ProPublica
By combining the findings and extrapolating across 34 million hospitalizations in 2007, James concluded that preventable errors contribute to the deaths of 210,000 hospital patients annually.

I did a quick calculation on these numbers. 210,00 patients with errors that contributed to their deaths out of 34 million admissions comes to 0.6%. Do you have a link that tells us how many people there are who might be killed by guns? We need some numbers for that to make a legitimate comparison. Actually I'm not sure just what numbers would make a good comparison in this case. And we need to keep in mind that health care is a much more complex field than shooting.

Doctors are working on an extremely complex system that can malfunction in an enormous number of ways. Guns are really quite simple systems that have only a few failure modes.

Basically I'm saying that I don't find your comparison very compelling.

As I said above I am somewhat neutral in regard to gun ownership.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
using the 34,000,000 admissions to a hospital would be like
counting everyone who walks by someone wearing a gun or driving by someone's house that has a gun in it or someone's car that has a gun in it etc.

lets just stick with the 98,000 and the 500 accidental deaths
unless you want me to include the thousands of times each year that everyone comes in close proximity or deadly range of a firearm because a comparison to the 34,000,000 hospital admissions would be met with a number in the hundreds of billions of times that people come in deadly range of a firearm per year.

here's one that says 600 from accidental death by firearms.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

you can use the 600 vs the 500 if you like , it really wont make much of a difference.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, having thought about that a little more I think that the biggest problem with what you are saying is that it is really comparing apples to oranges. It isn't really a good comparison.

As I said I am not really in either camp on this one. The problem is that both sides on the gun debate throw all kinds of information around. But on both sides the information is biased. There may be some unbiased studies on the subject of gun control, but they are lost in the huge number that are biased one way or the other.

In cases like this, where there are 2 strongly opposed sides I generally figure that the answer is some place in the middle. There probably should be some reasonable level of gun control. The problem being defining reasonable when the 2 sides are so very far apart. And of course just figuring out what would actually work depends on getting some good unbiased studies, which are really hard to come by.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I don't really see a problem with what I'm saying , because
what I'm saying is that there is a exponentially larger number
of accidental deaths that are a result of highly trained medical professionals / personnel each year as they perform their duties required by their jobs than there are accidental deaths that are a result of people who have never been trained or have little training in firearms.

the number of accidental deaths from firearms has decreased in the last decade by apx 28%

http://sssfonline.org/nssf-report-unintentional-firearms-fatalities-historic-low/

while the number of accidental deaths in the medical industry is experiencing tremendous growth in the last decade.

there's also the non deaths we should be concerned with.
10,000 each day from medical malpractice.

Quote:
It's not just the 1,000 deaths per day that should be huge cause for alarm, noted Joanne Disch, RN, clinical professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, who also spoke before Congress. There's also the 10,000 serious complications cases resulting from medical errors that occur each day.



http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

of course we can simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we will be well taken care of when we need medical attention or we can start charging those involved with these accidental deaths with the manslaughter or the intentional murder of these trusting individuals.

ie...

if you were to run a doctor over with your car by mistake
or accident which resulted in his death ... you would most likely be charged with manslaughter.


etc ... etc ... etc ...

so , the next time you see a news article or see on the TV
where someone has been accidentally killed by a firearm you
should question the intent of those involved with the reporting of the event and remember the est 1,000 killed each day and the est 10,000 maimed each day by the medical industry
and you should wonder and question why is it that you hardly ever see a news article or TV news show reporting these deaths
caused by the medical industry.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
If you are going on about that you don't seem to be counting the deaths where cars are involved. So I still see it at apples and oranges.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
This is why the gun debate will never go anywhere when it is placed next to something else in comparison, or why the issue of malpractice and or shady politics within medicine and its industry cannot be discussed without losing track or purpose. Someone decides to take the topic away from the discussion of statistics as it applies to one thing, and then dilute it with some other topic, or reference to a statistic that derails the issue into isolated components.

Used to be you could go to a general practitioner and call that person your doctor. Now every body part is covered by a specialist. If it was your toe that needed attention before and now its your finger, you can't go to the same doctor.
When discussing statistics in reference to an idea, someone will want to create an opposing statistic based on a different point of view, religion, or science.

Politicians are great at creating smoke screens to take the attention elsewhere, and so are doctors (and their lawyers). Seems anyone can split the focus into two different rivers if one wants to. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
apples and oranges.
they taste different , they look different.
but they both grow on trees and they are both fruits.
their seeds are contained in separated compartments
inside the fruit.

there's really not much difference between
an apple and an orange.

a comparison between a potato and an orange
would be a more negative comment to make.

apx 50,000 war deaths (6,800 us servicemen) and
(43,000 coalition partners)
died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
between the years 2001 - 2011.
that's a time span of 10 years or a decade.

meanwhile in the last decade , let me get my calculator
out ... and using the low est of 98,000 accidental medical industry deaths per year 980,000 us citizens have died from proximity to the medical industry.

its actually much safer to have spent time in a war zone
as a combatant than to have spent time in close proximity to
the medical industry.

in 2011 the number of servicemen that had been deployed overseas into the war zones was apx 2 million.

that's 10 years into the wars.

these people stayed in the war zones for apx 1 year.

2 million people x (365 days) = 730 million days exposure to war (where people are actually trying to kill you)

that's 730 million days in the war zones.

that equates to 73 million days per year.

people don't normally stay in close proximity of a medical
worker for more than a week in the hospitals because their
medicare money runs out , so they get discharged and readmitted a few days later when more medicare money is available to exploit.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm

using 35.1 million hospital admissions per year.
with an average length per admission of 4.8 days.

35.1 million x 4.8 days = 168,480,000 days

168,480,000 days per year... exposure to the medical industry.

we now have est explosure times

73 million days vs 168 million days
over a 1 year time span...

168 / 73 = 2.3
so the exposure time to the war zone is apx 1/2 that
of the exposure time to the medical industry.

50,000 deaths total for the 10 year time span
equates to 5,000 deaths per year.

980,000 deaths total for the 10 year time span
equates to 98,000 deaths per year.

98,000 / 5000 = 19.6

its almost twenty times as dangerous to be admitted into a hospital than it is to go to war where people are actually trying to kill you...



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
It is also more dangerous to take a shower than it is to go to war. I have read a number of times that a person is more likely to be killed by an accident in the home than by any other event.

If there is a problem in the medical field that is one problem.
If there is a problem with cars that is a different problem.
If there is a problem with showers that is a different problem.
If there is a problem with guns that is still a different problem.

Trying to base decisions about one problem on a totally different problem is not a realistic way to address any of them.

So we come back to my statement. I am neutral about gun control because nobody has a clear case in either direction. And I don't expect either side to be willing to compromise their biases just to figure out what the correct solution is.

Bill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
you are right about the many problems , my issue is that
the government doesn't seem to be concerned with or even discussing any steps towards the control of car accidents , shower accidents , or medical accidents ...

well , they have implemented regulations that cap the amounts
of monetary compensation that can be awarded to those who are
able to win a lawsuit against the medical industry.

I think they are also thinking about or are already limiting the amounts that can be compensated to people involved in car accidents that are the result of faulty automobile parts.

which will most likely cause more deaths in each industry.

but they want to harp on gun control on a constant basis and
its almost as if there is some outside pressure from outside our country being placed on our government officials to do so , they seem to be developing some unrealistic concerns or phobias about gun control as if the world would be a better place if gun control were in place in the us. they certainly do dwell on the subject and they go well beyond their scope to try to implement gun control.

they even seem to want to undermine the tried and true logic
that is found in the us constitution in order to please these outside pressures.

in my opinion (any) us politician that desires to obtain gun control in the us should not be allowed to serve in any aspect that is connected to the governing of the people of the us simply because the right to bear arms was intended as a control method that the free peoples of the us can and will employ if our government oversteps its bounds and scopes that are found in the us constitution.

no bias here ...
so I too am neutral where political parties are concerned when gun control is in question.

presidents , vice presidents , prior presidents and prior vice presidents and all political candidates are all protected
24/7 52 by the us secret service agents who just happen to carry firearms for some reason.

is that reason ... protection?

from the citizens of the us?

if the government want's the citizens to give up our protection from them then they should first give up their protection from the citizens as a good faith measure and let
us observe just how long that gun control would last.

I'm going to guess that at least a billion dollars is
spent on weapons , armor , bullets , vehicles , training , fuel , food , shelter, and shoe polish etc ... etc ... etc ... annually.

so it might be perceived that their and their families protection is a real concern to the politicians.


is it like , don't do as I do , just do as I say.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
you are right about the many problems , my issue is that
the government doesn't seem to be concerned with or even discussing any steps towards the control of car accidents , shower accidents , or medical accidents ...

The government has mandated air bags, seat belts, and now automatic braking in cars. The automatic braking will require cars to have systems that will engage the brakes if the closing speed to the car ahead is too great. Many states, including Oklahoma at last, outlaw texting and driving. These are all attempts to reduce the problems associated with car accidents.

Many building codes require such things as grab bars in showers. So the government is taking steps in these areas.

As far as medical accidents are concerned they keep working on ways to reduce the number of them. The problem there is that the medical field works with the most complex system there is. That makes it hard to figure out how to prevent accidents.

As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

So if you really want a resolution go out and support independent research that will actually lead to real facts in regard to guns. Don't just keep making the same old arguments. The problem there being that, just as you say you are neutral, but have presented the same basic arguments that gun rights people have been presenting. So I assume that you are in reality in favor of guns.

My intention in these replies is not to take a position for gun control. I don't know what a reasonable position would be. I just wanted to point out that if you want to argue for gun rights you need to use arguments that actually apply to the question of guns. So that most of the arguments that you have made don't really apply to guns. They are separate subjects and should be addressed separately.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:

The government has mandated air bags, seat belts, and now automatic braking in cars. The automatic braking will require cars to have systems that will engage the brakes if the closing speed to the car ahead is too great. Many states, including Oklahoma at last, outlaw texting and driving. These are all attempts to reduce the problems associated with car accidents.


yeah , that auto braking might work with only one car on the highway , but if you have ever driven in a large city
you know that people drive bumper to bumper and at pretty fast speeds , I can recall many a day driving home from work
in atlanta 2 or 3 feet behind the car in front of me at 70 mph , and when there was enought space in front of my car there
would always be someone darting in front of my car in order to change lanes to make it to his exit ramp ... I would simply love
to watch a highway full of these auto braking cars mixed in with non auto barking cars but wouldn't want to be in any of those cars
on the highway.

plus I think the people with the non auto braking cars would be toying with the auto braking cars , you know how people are.

what happens when someone does change lanes ? does every car brake behind the the car that brakes because a car changed lanes in front of him?
it seems that this would require massive brake usage and massive brake usage will ultimately lead to premature brake failure that will lead to many more car accidents and deaths.

reducing problems that cause accidents is one thing , but are they reducing the number of cars on the highway by banning them from use the way
that they want to ban guns from use in the us.

do they limit the speeds that cars can travel on the highway so that there is no need for people to control the speed of their car?
there would be an awesome reduction in auto accidents if the car cannot travel faster than the speed limits on the highways and roads
but no they dont do that , they could to save lives , but they dont ... but they do control how many bullets a firearm can shoot with
a single pull of the trigger.
and they do control the number of rounds that a firearms magazine can hold.

Quote:

Many building codes require such things as grab bars in showers. So the government is taking steps in these areas.


so their not trying to ban taking showers , they are trying to fix the problems associated with showers that
lead to deaths in showers.

Quote:

As far as medical accidents are concerned they keep working on ways to reduce the number of them. The problem there is that the medical field works with the most complex system there is. That makes it hard to figure out how to prevent accidents.


As far as the medical industry is concerned the complexity of medical safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of
medical safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

Quote:

As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.


As far as guns are concerned the complexity of gun safety is provided by the fact that people are the final part of the question of gun safety. And people are even more complex than medicine.

if you drive a car you must learn how to safely drive before you can legally get a drivers liscense.
if you work in the medical field you must learn how to perform your duties before you are allowed to work with medicine.

if you want to own and shoot a firearm you must have the money to buy it.

I think that gun safety training requirements would be the path to less gun accidents.
besides the criminals in the us will get the guns they want , even if they have to kill the cops in order to get them.
and the criminals will begin to own the cities completely including the police in the cities.

I dont really want to see that happen but I know that thats what would happen if the government ever succedes in
removing our right to bear arms.

the us constitution does not say that you must have gun safety training to own and operate a firearm

but it clearly states that we do have the right to bear arms to throw off a tyrantical government.

Quote:

the most complex system there is


that system must be the human mind.


cars do not kill.
showers do not kill.
medical equipment does not kill.
guns do not kill.

lack of training or neglect of trained skills kills.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ok, I am going to take this in pieces. Right now I am going to talk about just your discussion of auto braking cars. Any discussion of guns I will defer to a separate post. I sure wish SAGG still had the original threaded approach. Then discussions could wander off in several directions without losing track of the relevant posts.

Originally Posted By: Paul
yeah , that auto braking might work with only one car on the highway , but if you have ever driven in a large city
you know that people drive bumper to bumper and at pretty fast speeds , I can recall many a day driving home from work
in atlanta 2 or 3 feet behind the car in front of me at 70 mph , and when there was enought space in front of my car there
would always be someone darting in front of my car in order to change lanes to make it to his exit ramp ... I would simply love
to watch a highway full of these auto braking cars mixed in with non auto barking cars but wouldn't want to be in any of those cars
on the highway.

plus I think the people with the non auto braking cars would be toying with the auto braking cars , you know how people are.

what happens when someone does change lanes ? does every car brake behind the the car that brakes because a car changed lanes in front of him?
it seems that this would require massive brake usage and massive brake usage will ultimately lead to premature brake failure that will lead to many more car accidents and deaths.

reducing problems that cause accidents is one thing , but are they reducing the number of cars on the highway by banning them from use the way
that they want to ban guns from use in the us.

do they limit the speeds that cars can travel on the highway so that there is no need for people to control the speed of their car?
there would be an awesome reduction in auto accidents if the car cannot travel faster than the speed limits on the highways and roads
but no they dont do that , they could to save lives , but they dont

I agree that there will probably be some problems with the auto braking cars. That will be a particular problem for the people you refer to who keep cutting into a different lane. I don't think the auto braking system will let you get within a few feet of the car ahead of you at 70 mph. And when somebody cuts in front of you your car should slow down to maintain a safe distance. There will be some teething pains. Of course the drivers who have auto braking and still want to drive like that will be the ones who hate it the most.

As far as changing lanes is concerned. I expect that the cars will have a braking schedule in the operating system. They won't put the brakes on full just because somebody is in front of them, the braking force will vary depending on the situation. The same as you do when somebody cuts in front of you right now. I doubt if that will cause very many early brake failures.

Limiting the speeds of cars to the posted limit is fine, but it has to be built into the car. The car has to detect the legal speed and limit the speed of the car. That gets tricky. In fact it leads to the self driving car.

Of course self driving cars would take a huge bite out of the auto accident record. They will of course drive some people out of their minds when they can't drive their cars the way they want to. I have seen a report that the self driving cars that are being tested have had a great safety record. All of the accidents they have been involved in have been when they were rear ended. It appears that drivers behind them sometimes assume they will keep going when the car decides it is time to stop. I have observed that myself. When I approach a traffic signal just as it turns yellow I check to see what the vehicle behind be looks like it is going to do. If it looks safe I will stop, if not I will go through. This is something that will have to be factored into the operating system.

For myself I think a self driving car would be great. I look on a car as a way to get from here to there. Some people look on the car as an extension of themselves and want to have complete control so they can drive it in any unsafe manner they want to.

And of course that brings us to one of the big problems with government safety laws. In the interests of keeping us safe they are keeping us from doing anything that is fun. There needs to be some kind of balance, but I have no idea where it should be.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
And now the ethics of the algorithms used by self driving cars. Phys.Org has a story about a paper discussing ethics used by the cars. The specific question asked is, what should the car do if it is about to run into a crowd and it can't stop. Should it miss the crowd and kill one person?

The story is at When self-driving cars drive the ethical questions

Just another port heard from.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I just thought about this , if all autos become self driven and if a self driven auto runs into a crowd of people and kills people I wonder how well will the families of the deceased manage their newly acquired auto industry?

the deaths cant be the fault of the people/drivers so you can never be sued for any accident or get a traffic violation , also this would remove the need for owners of these self driven autos to purchase auto insurance , and that will cost the us economy untold billions of dollars and jobs in the insurance industry , there will be no state or local income from traffic law violators , so the state or local governments will need to sue the auto manufacturers for any remotely detected traffic law violations. the people may only be leasing these vehicles to transport them from place to place so they shouldn't need to purchase a car tag or pay any taxes on the car each year that will all be the responsibility of the drivers of the vehicles and the driver is the operating system and the parts of the vehicle that the programming controls. and if you don't own the vehicle then you don't own
the driver and cannot be found guilty of any offense the driver will make. the leasing company would be at fault
for any offence that the vehicle makes or who ever owns and controls the vehicle.

I doubt that people will want to purchase a self driving vehicle knowing that they would be responsible for the damages it might do to others or their property.

you would basically be riding in a taxi cab only you pay a monthly fare vs the fare for each individual trip you hire.

so your talking about taking income away from state and local and federal governments , that's just not going to happen no
matter how sweet the idea is ... just like the energy taxes
prevent any type of energy savings from coming into use.

the law makers are just a group of crooks that belong to those
who would lose great amounts of money , so no it wont happen.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
BTW , if this was the only mode of transportation that an
individual had available , I would charge a large amount of money for rent when the vehicle is just sitting in my driveway.

and if it just happened to run over nails all the time and flatten its tires that too would not help matters.

this would just be another attempt at a control method by those who want to film and record us in our everyday life
and of course I would be against it.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
The chances of a self driving car plowing into a crowd of people would be remote. That is one of the things that is included in the algorithms used in the cars. It certainly happens with driver controlled cars. Just yesterday at the Oklahoma State University home coming parade somebody did just that. The driver killed a bunch of people and seriously injured a bunch more. That probably would not have happened with a self driving car.

As far as insurance is concerned I expect it would still be required, but the premiums would go down sharply. Licensing of vehicles would still be required. The license fees would be paid by the owner of the car. Who would pay is open. Obviously the individual owner would pay. For a leased car it would depend on the lease terms. Either the lessee would pay or the leasing company would pay, depending on the contract. In either case it would be the lessee who actually paid, just as renters pay real estate taxes through their land lords.

Of course my heart bleeds for the insurance companies who make big bucks off of automobile insurance. Of course this would free up money for the individuals which they could spend on other things that would create new jobs in other fields.

Speed traps would dry up, but there has already been some relief from that, at least here in Oklahoma. Any town where more than 50% of the towns income is from traffic fines can be declared a speed trap. They then will not be able to issue tickets on the highway through the town. That shut down a bunch of speed traps. Of course in many places the reduction in need for traffic enforcement would free up valuable police resources to concentrate on other types of crime. We might actually be able to really provide better police protection against real crimes.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
First off, at least here in Oklahoma, before you can get a concealed carry permit you have to take a gun course. This is supposed to prepare you to use a gun responsibly. So your call for training is not necessarily a valid call. It certainly does make sense that anybody who owns or has access to a gun should be well trained in its use.

Also I just saw something in the paper this morning. There has been a study of gun deaths in states with and without gun controls. The states with gun controls had lower gun death rates, sometimes, Sometimes it didn't make any difference. The author of the study had no explanation for this except that it is a very complex question. So the question is still open as to what types of gun controls might make the most sense. I am still open on the question, although I still say that the answer is someplace in the middle between complete freedom to have guns and complete prohibition of guns.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
the more I think about this the less I believe it will
ever come into play. machines rarely make mistakes so your right the insurance rates would plummet.

probably to the point where the manufacturer would carry
the insurance themselves due to the cost per vehicle.

and they already know that auto insurance is a racket and
wouldn't feel compelled to donate large amounts of their
income to the auto insurance industry so they would simply
form their own insurance company.

so there went the auto insurance industry.
because when you lease the auto the insurance is included
out of necessity.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
gun safety training should be a requirement but the banning or
controlling of guns is a non American practice.

the states or local governments that have laws or
regulations that control the ability of any American
citizen to bear arms is illegal according to the us
constitution where as the states do not have the
ability to override the us constitution when
the right to bear arms is in question.

all powers that are not granted to the union by
the us constitution are granted to the
states and/or the people/citizens.

the tenth amendment.

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text


I see the fine State of Kansas is not suckin the hind tit on
this matter , they have achieved somewhat of a immunity to
the illegal gun control practice being pursued and established in other obvious anti constitutional states.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/17/kansas-governor-signs-second-amendment-protection-act/

Quote:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.


and that is the way the us constitution reads.
any law that has been passed that infringes
the rights of a us citizen to bear arms is illegal.

and the only type of government that would want to
remove arms from its citizens is the exact type of
government that the founders and writers of
the us constitution had in mind when they clearly
gave the citizens the right to bear arms so that
the citizens could in fact throw off that type of
government if deemed necessary.

by attempting to remove this right
the government is in fact attempting to
remove all other rights and the us constitution itself.

the right to bear arms is the enforcement mechanism
that protects all other rights including
the us constitution itself.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul

I see the fine State of Kansas is not suckin the hind tit on
this matter , they have achieved somewhat of a immunity to
the illegal gun control practice being pursued and established in other obvious anti constitutional states.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/17/kansas-governor-signs-second-amendment-protection-act/

Quote:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.


and that is the way the us constitution reads.
any law that has been passed that infringes
the rights of a us citizen to bear arms is illegal.



Well, that is a fine example of a meaningless law. It is already a fact that anything that is unconstitutional is null and void in any US state, district, or territory, just as soon as the US Supreme Court rules that is is not constitutional. And the only entity that can rule on the constitutionality of any law, etc. is the US Supreme Court. A state law making such a statement is completely superfluous. And of course once the Supreme Court makes its ruling then that is the way it is.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
It don't work that way Bill.

the us supreme court does not write laws nor does it have any
powers to change the us constitution.

they do have judicial powers but not law making powers.
and their decisions can be nulled because after all they are only people who sometimes make stressful if not influenced decisions that are later found to be wrong.

Quote:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,


but the us supreme court has never had nor will it ever have authority that overrides the us constitution.

otherwise some clever group of people might install a anti
constitutional judge or set of anti constitutional judges to do their will and nullify the us constitution for their groups belief or agenda.

congress can make amendments/changes to the laws found in the us constitution.

but they know that the changes that they make can be removed
as well as themselves including the president any and all underneath him if deemed necessary the us constitution
protects itself by its wording.

so they are really cautious in what they attempt to change.

swearing an oath to protect the us constitution does not mean
that they should change its wording because its an old document
it means that they swore to protect its wording and any changes they make can cost them their office.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
That's what I said. The US Supreme Court is the judicial body charged with deciding whether any law is constitutional. They are the only national body so charged. In any state the state supreme court decides whether a state law is in agreement with the state constitution. However, the US Supreme Court decides if a state or federal law is in agreement with the US Constitution. Once the US Supreme Court makes the decision then that is the way it is, unless they readdress the decision and make a new interpretation. Sometimes their decisions do not directly address one single law, but are generic in nature, or at least contain wording that impacts laws in many states. The school segregation issue is an example. The Supreme Court found segregation unconstitutional. Then all states were forced to integrate their schools.

You are right. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. But it decides whether any law is constitutional. Therefore it may not make laws, but it can cancel laws, including state laws. And the US Supreme Court is the only entity that has that capability. The Kansas law that you cited is therefore kind of ridiculous. If Kansas feels that a law is against the second amendment then the only thing it can do is to file suit in federal court to have the law rescinded. The ultimate decision on the constitutionality of the law still resides with the Supreme Court, not with the state of Kansas.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
OK , it was the way I read your comment below , to me I
perceived that what you were saying was that the current laws found in the us constitution such as the law that grants the power or right to the us citizens to own and bear arms to defend the us constitution. ie the union of states that was formed when the colonist threw off the last government that we had in the revolutionary war against the british tyrants would need to be found constitutional by the us supreme court.

Quote:
Well, that is a fine example of a meaningless law. It is already a fact that anything that is unconstitutional is null and void in any US state, district, or territory, just as soon as the US Supreme Court rules that it is not constitutional.


I bet the british wish they would have been able to install a form of gun control back then like they are trying to install these days because without the colonist having guns to fight back with it would have made the war much easier for the british tyrants to win the war.

which brings me to the unconstitutional and infringing gun laws currently in place that have removed the ability of the arms that the us citizens can legally own to rapid or auto fire munitions and the removal of high capacity magazines.

the us constitution grants its citizens the right to a well
regulated militia ...

Quote:
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.


single shot or semi fire weapons with low capacity magazines
reduce or infringe on the ability of a militia to defend the security of its state and the us constitution and are unconstitutional.

the us supreme courts never had the power to override the
us constitution where the removal of the right to have and maintain a well regulated militia is concerned.

all militaries of the world use automatic weapons with large capacity magazines , so our ability to quickly form a militia to defend our state has been infringed and is not well regulated.

if anything they have removed the regulator valve and have installed a tiny orifice to ensure a win the next time a government of tyrants decides to do tyrannical things that cause the citizens to revolt against them.

ask your state government if they have a state militia and
then ask if the members of the state militia are required to
bring their own weapons to the fight or if the state will
supply them with well requlated arms that could be compared
to the arms of any soldier of any military of the world if they ever had to fight to defend their state.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, as a lot of gun advocates know the Supreme Court has oked some gun controls. The requirements for special registration of fully automatic weapons and such like. So that apparently doesn't fall foul of the constitution. Now I understand that a lot of people think that the Supreme Court has made some mistakes. I agree that there have been mistakes, I haven't always agreed with their decisions. But the way it goes the US Constitution says that the Supreme Court is always right, even when they are wrong.

Quote:
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.


As far as the Second Amendment is concerned you will find a lot of arguments about just what it means. Some people look at the first clause, about the militia and say that members of the militia are the only ones who can keep and bear arms. Others look at just the third phrase "the right of the people" and say the right applies to every one. The Supreme Court has very carefully kept from speaking on that issue.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written the militia consisted of the members of a community who could be called up in case of an emergency. Now days there are plenty of people who see the National Guard as the modern equivalent. Under that point of view then only the National Guard can keep and bear arms. I am excluding the Reserve Forces, which are technically parts of the United States Armed Forces, not militia members. I suppose they could be considered militia, but I prefer to stick to the National Guard. Any way that is one interpretation of the second amendment that has some reasonable justification.

The other part of the Second Amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A lot of people look at it and say that it doesn't matter what the reason given in the amendment is concerned the last part is what is important. Whatever reason the writers had to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the last part is the important part, and overrides the first part about the militia.

So there is a very real question as to the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. I don't think the Supreme Court will speak on its actual meaning until they are forced to do so.

In the mean time I am still neutral. As I have said before, when there are 2 highly polarized sides to an argument then the answer is probably some where in the middle. But right now there is no unbiased research that clearly indicates where the proper balance point is.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I try not to read meanings into the us constitution so
when it clearly states that ...

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.

it means that each and every free state in the union
has a right to keep a well regulated militia for security of the free state.

and it also clearly states that each us citizen has the
right to keep and bear arms.

and shall not be infringed.
is exactly what it means.

granted you don't need full automatic weapons and large capacity magazines to hunt game animals with but the right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting , hunting is just the way people used to provide food for their families.

I have never heard of an instance where an army consisting of game animals attacked the free peoples of a state and threatened that states security.

hunting weapons and weapons for the defense of a free state are
completely different weapons.

and the military type weapons designed for the military should not be used for hunting likewise a us citizen in his states militia should not be expected by his state to bring hunting weapons to the fight when his state expects a well regulated state militia as provided for in the us constitution to be present at the fight .

I will never be a supreme court judge either because I
don't read things into the wording of the us constitution
or its amendments.

to me it clearly gives power to the people of each state to have a well
regulated militia , and it clearly gives each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

and the well regulated means that the arms that a citizen
can own and bear should be comparable to the arms that the
military keeps and bears to defend the nation against invasion
of a foreign power , likewise each state should have its own militia with weapons that are comparable to the weapons of the us military should one free state ever need to defend itself from another free state or should one free state ever need to defend its self from the us military.

or groups of free states need to defend their states from an invading foreign power or from a us government of tyrants that have requested foreign powers step in and intervene on behalf of their us government of tyrants because the us military refuses to kill or harm us citizens.

there are states that have a non federally connected state militia and they are called state defense forces (SDF) but
congress does not seem to think that the us constitution really means much because it refuses to improve the poor
( not well regulated ) condition of the SDF's by ignoring bills that could have improved the condition of the state defence forces or state militia's in the us.

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

Quote:
Several bills have been unsuccessfully introduced in Congress since the early 1990s seeking to improve the readiness of state defense forces. The most recent, H.R. 206, introduced in 2009 by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, would have allowed the U.S. Secretary of Defense to transfer surplus U.S. military equipment to state defense forces. Co-sponsors of the bill included Jim Marshall and Frank Wolf. Congress took no action on the measure before adjourning.[


the page describes how the federal government may under certain circumstances take ownership or control of these state defense forces and I don't think that there should be any ability of the federal government to control any measure of these state defense forces as it may be the federal government itself that these forces need to defend against so the ownership and full control of these state defense forces should remain in the state of residence of the state defense force.

however the funding of these non federally connected state militia should be provided by both the federal government and the state governments as both the union and the state would be a benefactor in the event of an invasion by a foreign power.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I might point out that when the US Constitution and its first 10 amendments were written the militia members provided their own weapons. And they would mostly have been hunting weapons.

I believe that the state, actually mostly community, militias would have been on call to the federal government in case of invasion. So that the state National Guard organizations have mostly taken the place of the militias.

As far as a well regulated militia, I think that would imply a strict control of the militias organization and training by the sponsoring state. That of course is supplied by the National Guard. And of course the National Guard provides a unified command and control structure with the regular armed forces. A separate state militia would probably not be as easily integrated into a national defense.

As far as invasion of one state by another I find it unlikely. However, I do know that at one time Oklahoma's Governor, Alpha Bill Murray, called out the National Guard to protect a bridge across the Red River from Texas. A new toll bridge had been built and they wanted to tear down the old free bridge. I don't know if any other states have come that close to war with a neighboring state. Of course right now I think Governor Murray's actions are looked at more with amusement than with pride. A demonstration of the klutzes we have elected from time to time.

Anyway, the constitution gives the federal government control over inter-state affairs. So if one state tried to invade another the US Army would probably be called on to intervene. The chances of such an event are extremely remote.

And the constitution gives the federal government responsibility for defending the country from foreign invasions, so a state militia would only be useful as a source of conscripts for the regular army, which is what the National Guard provides.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I might point out that when the US Constitution and its first 10 amendments were written the militia members provided their own weapons. And they would mostly have been hunting weapons.


exactly the militia members provided their own weapons and back then there was little or no difference between a british military weapon and a colonist weapon.

they all used a flint spark to ignite gun powder that fired a single round of ball ammunition , they then had to reload which took apx 15-20 seconds and point the weapon in the direction of their respective foe and fire again.

not much aiming took place they mostly just fired into the crowd.

the us military have in fact advanced so far that a single modern soldier with a light machine gun could have defeated the entire british army and could have mowed them down at a distance so far away that they would never know where the
soldier was ... and he could have done that at night with
an ir scope ... or he could have simply sunk the wooden ships as they approached the shores using he rounds.

the us military could do the same thing today to the states defense forces just as easily if the people in the military
would fire on civilians.

and the military is training them to fire on civilians from what I understand , what I would do is remain calm and do the training to prevent myself from being weeded out of the military because of my ideals and then if the time ever comes when an officer tells me to kill a civilian I would kill the officer because he would have proven to me that he is my enemy.

if that ever comes into play in the military I am certain there will be many more that would react the same way.
the ass kissers of course will follow orders no matter what orders are given in order to please their superiors.

Quote:
I believe that the state, actually mostly community, militias would have been on call to the federal government in case of invasion. So that the state National Guard organizations have mostly taken the place of the militias.


yes the president would be the commander in chief of the
army and navy of the united states , the national guard and the state militias (which have become the national guard).

but the state defense forces are under full control of the governor of its state.

Quote:
State defense forces (SDF; also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.


the national in national guard implies ( national control ) and the national guard is under national / federal control.

when our government clearly desires to remove the freedoms and the powers that are granted to united states citizens by the wording of the us constitution and steps and measures are being taken by the government to implement the removal of these freedoms , rights and powers , to me it is a clear and unquestionable desire of the government to void the us constitution and each state should provide the funding of its state defense force prior to demanding that the federal government repay its fair share of that funding because the us constitution deemed it necessary for every state to have its own well regulated militia and it did not state that every state should have a portion of the us military within its borders to serve as the sole protection of its state.

Quote:
As far as invasion of one state by another I find it unlikely. However, I do know that at one time Oklahoma's Governor, Alpha Bill Murray, called out the National Guard to protect a bridge across the Red River from Texas. A new toll bridge had been built and they wanted to tear down the old free bridge. I don't know if any other states have come that close to war with a neighboring state. Of course right now I think Governor Murray's actions are looked at more with amusement than with pride. A demonstration of the klutzes we have elected from time to time.


well there was of course the us civil war where each states militia from the north (USA) and the south (CSA) were organized and commanded by their respective state government in the years leading up to the war between the states.

Quote:
Anyway, the constitution gives the federal government control over inter-state affairs. So if one state tried to invade another the US Army would probably be called on to intervene. The chances of such an event are extremely remote


well , the us constitution also clearly gives the state governments the right to have and the control over a state militia ... but where are these mighty state militias that defend the states?

so the us constitution says this somewhere and it says that somewhere else ... why does one saying have powers over another saying?

not having a well regulated ( well equipped ) militia in each state that is controlled by each state as the us constitution requires sort of allows the rest of the us constitution to become defunct doesn't it.

or does it simply mean that the us government itself realizes that it could not get away with removing our freedoms if these requirements in the us constitution were fulfilled.

Quote:
And the constitution gives the federal government responsibility for defending the country from foreign invasions, so a state militia would only be useful as a source of conscripts for the regular army, which is what the National Guard provides.


theres always the possibility that a nation that could quickly form a really large army such as china or Russia or india or a group of nations such as these might decide for some reason to invade the united states and in the event that the us regular army forces were defeated and had surrendered to the invaders
each state may not want to sign over their sovereignity to the invading armies ... if each state had a well regulated militia then these invaders would then be faced by forces that might just prove to be too much for them to defeat and at that time the wording of the us constitution would be seen as the savior of the united states as a nation , they could build the ships needed to invade the invaders nations and get on with it at that point.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
And there is no law against being an irrational conspiracy theorist.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
well if you want your theory of

-------------
a state in the us that needs no protection
from the us government
-------------

to achieve some measure of reality vs theory
then you must first provide some type of evidence
that shows that the us government has no present or future intentions of harming its citizens via the removal of the
citizens rights found in the us constitution.

people might start believing your theory if you can produce
any evidence that there is a free state in the us that does not require the us military for its security.

and I know that facts are not important to those who want
to adhere to the beliefs of their group of peers or like minded thinkers even those who claim to be neutral on the gun control issues presently being heavily pursued by the us government but the fact remains that the us constitution does require that all free states in the us have a militia that is well regulated.

plus regulated does not mean organized either , the word
organized existed and was in use when the us constitution was written.

to regulate means to control a flow , so I think that
what they meant was that the condition of the state militias should not fall below the standard condition of the us army forces.

heck , any government consisting of people who never
intend to bring any harm to its citizens should not resent each state having the ability to defend itself if it ever needs defending.

only a government that does intend to bring harm to its citizens would not want the states to have the ability to defend itself from the government.

that all makes sense to me and as a plus we now , each state in this fine union have a very large number of trained ex military personnel returning from the battlefields who are
plunged back into civilian life many times with disastrous results.

providing a state ran militia for each state would greatly help each states economy and greatly lower the jobless rate in the us , and it would help the arms industry as well as all
industry that provides clothing , training materials , etc etc etc for the us military would experience a boom in business
and growth as this becomes a part of the internal security of every state in the us and the union as a whole.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Originally Posted By: US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

(my italics)

Originally Posted By: Paul
people might start believing your theory if you can produce
any evidence that there is a free state in the us that does not require the us military for its security.

The constitution provides that the defense of the country at large is provided by the US military. It also requires that the states not attack each other, or words to that effect.

Originally Posted By: Paul
and I know that facts are not important to those who want
to adhere to the beliefs of their group of peers or like minded thinkers even those who claim to be neutral on the gun control issues presently being heavily pursued by the us government but the fact remains that the us constitution does require that all free states in the us have a militia that is well regulated.


And of course the 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. But I don't see any place where the states are required to have a well regulated militia. The quote I have above mentions the militia of the several states, but I don't see that it requires them to have one.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


this excerpt is from the us constitution as written and adopted in 1789.

---- 1789 ----

Quote:
The Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was completed on September 17, 1787, with its adoption by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was later ratified by special conventions in each state. It created a federal union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It replaced the less defined union that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. It took effect on March 4, 1789


and was amended a few years later in 1791 to reflect the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the right of
the states to have a well regulated militia and there is no mention of the need for any type of approval or permissions needed from the president or congress for any state to form
a state militia that is commanded by the state government.

--- 1791 ---

Quote:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[


as the second amendment clearly states.

Quote:
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.


that's written pretty clearly and really needs no correction.

I can understand its meanings.

Quote:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;


there is a distinct difference when the word militia
is being discussed those differences being...

the national guard (or National Guard of a State)

is state organized , and governed , and can be called to
active duty only by state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

the national guard of the united states

is federally organized , and governed , and can be called to
active duty by the president of the united states.

Quote:

The constitution provides that the defense of the country at large is provided by the US military. It also requires that the states not attack each other, or words to that effect.


as a whole nation the us military is the main defense of
the union of us states.

what are the words you are speaking of when you wrote..
Quote:
requires that the states not attack each other, or words to that effect.


I have read the second amendment that requires that states
have a well regulated militia but haven't read that part yet.

Quote:
And of course the 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. But I don't see any place where the states are required to have a well regulated militia. The quote I have above mentions the militia of the several states, but I don't see that it requires them to have one.


the bill of rights is a list of rights that
pertain to the rights of the people and are listed
as articles.

there are 12 articles in the bill of rights.

the fourth article in the bill of rights 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.

in todays language it might read as follows.

you have the right to have a well trained and well armed militia in your state of residence , and in order to properly defend your state in the event of war you also have the right to keep and bear arms and munitions and equipment that could be compared to the standard arms and munitions and equipment in use by the us armed forces so that you can be properly equipped and supplied with the arms and munitions and equipment that you would need to fulfill your role as a member in your state militia to keep in your possession in the event of war to take to the war when you are called to report to the war , and these rights cannot legally be removed.


heres what alexander Hamilton said about a
"well regulated militia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame...ated_militia.22

Quote:
Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:


If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security ... confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority ... [but] reserving to the states ... the authority of training the militia ... A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[73]


the wording above clearly is focused on the national security
not state security yet the words "well regulated militia" clearly describe a militia that is well trained , well equipped for war in the event that the militia is called upon by its commander.

so the above pretty much clears up the meaning used in the
days that the bill of rights were written and the words
"well regulated militia" were used in the bill of rights.

so we know what our fore fathers meant when these words were written.

Quote:
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was a founding father of the United States, chief staff aide to General George Washington, one of the most influential interpreters and promoters of the U.S. Constitution, the founder of the nation's financial system, the founder of the Federalist Party, the world's first voter-based political party, the Father of the United States Coast Guard

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


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
<<<snip>>>
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Notice how the Congress still has the duty to organize the militia, to arm it and to define the discipline under which it will be trained. I don't see anything in there about an independent state militia. The states get the right to assign officers and have the authority to train the militia, as long as they follow the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at with your description of 2 apparently different National Guards. I am aware of only one National Guard in each state. Its duties are as you described. They can be called by the governor of the state in times of local emergency, and they can be called by the federal government in times of national emergencies.

As far as states not attacking each other, the idea that all interstate activities are to be controlled by the federal government, and that all states are treated equally. The following kind of gives that idea.

Originally Posted By: US Constitution
Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


And the rest of you words are just more of the same stuff you have been spouting.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Notice how the Congress still has the duty to organize the militia, to arm it and to define the discipline under which it will be trained. I don't see anything in there about an independent state militia. The states get the right to assign officers and have the authority to train the militia, as long as they follow the discipline prescribed by Congress.

I can certainly understand the confusion you are having.

congress has powers over
the national guard of the united states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

the national guard of a state ( is the states defense force SDF )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#State_defense_forces

Quote:
State defense forces[edit]

Main article: State defense force

Many states also maintain their own state defense forces. Although not federal entities like the National Guard of the United States, these forces are components of the state militias like the individual state National Guards.

These forces were created by Congress in 1917 as a result of the state National Guards' being deployed and were known as Home Guards. In 1940, with the onset of World War II and as a result of its federalizing the National Guard, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916, and authorized the states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."[17] This law authorized the War Department to train and arm the new military forces that would come to be known as State Guards. In 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War and at the urging of the National Guard, Congress reauthorized the separate state military forces for a time period of two years. These state military forces were authorized military training at federal expense, as well as "arms, ammunition, clothing, and equipment," as deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Army.[18] In 1956, Congress finally revised the law and authorized "State defense forces" permanently under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code.[19]


Quote:
As far as states not attacking each other, the idea that all interstate activities are to be controlled by the federal government, and that all states are treated equally. The following kind of gives that idea.


if all states are to be treated equally and if one state were to attack another state then how can the us or federal army attack the attacker?

the us military cannot go to war with its citizens.

the combined forces of the FBI and all of a states law enforcement agencies could not repel an invasion of one state against another state.

however the us constitution does give power to the peoples
of a free state to have a well regulated militia for the security of the free state.

article 4 , the bill of rights

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.

united states code
title 32
section 109
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1996-title32/html/USCODE-1996-title32-chap1-sec109.htm
the maintenance of other troops.

Quote:
32 U.S.C.
United States Code, 1996 Edition
Title 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 1 - ORGANIZATION
Sec. 109 - Maintenance of other troops
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov


§109. Maintenance of other troops

(a) In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).

(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.

(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.


so , a states defense force (SDF) is the only entity that
is in place (if a state has one )
that could properly (if well regulated)
and legally (article 4 bill of rights and USC 32,109)
defend its states borders from an invasion.

thus my reality shows its evidence , were it a theory it
would not have gained enough evidence strong enough to
move it from theory to reality.

so what you claim is a conspiracy theory of mine
all turns out to be reality.
so am I a conspiracy realist.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
And none of the laws you quote are a part of the constitution.

If you don't recall the last time one state attacked another was during the Civil War and the US Army certainly attacked the southern states.

So Conspiracy Theorists continue using all kinds of distorted theories to support their weird ideas.

Nuff Said.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
yes I recall that ... lol ... the confederate states
first seceded from the union , so that the people and the
armies of the confederate states were no longer protected
by the us constitution and the confederate states formed
their own confederate constitution...

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

so you haven't really said enough to say "nuff said"
causezitaint anuffsaid.

Quote:
So Conspiracy Theorists continue using all kinds of distorted theories to support their weird ideas.


I agree , that's why I used the available facts found in the
constitution , the bill of rights , and the united states code
and a theory that cant be proven to be right
will always simply be a theory.

so , I suppose knowing the facts about this makes your
side of the discussion seem like a conspiracy and the
facts make you seem more like a conspiracy theorist than me.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, maybe just a few more words, then this is done.

What I have been trying to point out is that there are people who make claims about what the US Constitution requires which is not necessarily what it actually requires. And there are places where there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to the meaning of some parts of it. In this particular case the second amendment. The exact meaning depends on how you parse it out.

In regard to gun control it is obvious that the 2nd amendment is an important part of the argument, but since there is a disagreement as to what it means we will have to wait until the US Supreme Court finally makes a decision on the matter. The Supreme Court is the body which has final authority to interpret it.

In the mean time as far as gun control per se is concerned I am still holding my judgement. Until there is convincing evidence to back up a position I will straddle the fence. I still think that the correct answer will be found to be some place in the middle between the 2 extremes.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Somewhere along the line we need to focus on stopping people from shooting other people and then killing themselves either by using the gun on themselves or by cop-assisted suicide. We need to find a way to stop the carnage before it happens. There are a lot of factors involved with these types of situations, but the fact is that guns are far too easily available to those who want to harm others. We have become a society that is run through with guns and killing. The popular games all show lots of guns and blood and gore and almost glorify it. As long as we hold the images of death and destruction up for reward as "play" we will continue to have people who are determined to go out and kill people for real. Play killing desensitizes us to the real thing. It lowers the threshold for a person to do it for real. As long as we feed kids violence in the form of games we are going to have real violence coming from the emotionally disturbed sector of people out there.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Ending the destruction of man and property requires having a value system that supports diversity rather than specialty, and highlights unity over the worship of power and money. Children are rewarded for success and punished for failure. This is human demoralization. Fear of failure causes man to judge in defense of ones self doubt and self worth.

Guns are merely a means. Take them away and as long as the stress continues within the value systems of human idealism which separates man by success and failure, desperate personalities seeking support where there is none, will in their desperation, find other means to deal out their own kind of justice and or stress release.

The destruction of laws created as the foundation for judgment based on greater knowledge and awareness in favor of democratic rule is insane.
Take any demoralized group of people, manipulate them with hope by targeting another group of people and you sway them towards creating choices that not only invade equality and justice, but take human rights and replace them with fear based law abiding "worse case scenario's" that set paranoia into place as the common feel of the land. Every war has been created this way. Set up a scenario for suffering, place your blame and attack those responsible. Then those who set the blame take charge and create laws that support their own interests.

The gun debate is smoke and mirrors focusing on the objects of destruction and not the cause of their use. Those who use these smoke and mirror tactics seek to change the law to give more power to those in charge, by destroying the laws that inhibit their ability to force law to their favor in creating absolute power within government rather than representation of the people.

The dumb-ing down of all people thru the degradation of education, use of the media to sensationalize and stereotype politicians and actors as hero's, and creating judgment, fear and criticism of free will, is synonymous with the biblical prophecies of "The Beast". The Authority that decides human value and destiny.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Heres an interesting article.. a bit off topic but in line with the idea of education, belief and manipulation of facts.
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/e...20Is%20A%20Lie#


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Hi Amaranth

your right , I just don't believe that removing guns
will stop the killings because there are many other ways
to kill and injure people.

someone with a cross bow can do the exact same thing that
a person with a gun can , and he never will run out of ammo
if you don't believe me then you have never watched Darrel on the walking dead.

on the walking dead they use baseball bats , knives , crowbars , pipes , anything that is heavy and handy to
kill the dead people with by smashing their skulls in
or anything light that is pointy to penetrate their brains with.

the intent of gun control obviously is not to remove the killing it is to remove the ability of the people to revolt and attack any protection / defense that a government of tyrants may have in place and to remove such government of tyrants from power.

without gun control there will be far less attackers killed
than there would be if the attackers were using sticks and stones to perform the attacks with.

however I certainly do agree with you that something needs to
be done about the killing and when I talk about the killing I
mean all the killing from all sources of preventable killing.

certainly not starting with gun control ... start with the number one killer first because starting with the number one killer will save many more lives.

then go to number two ... then number three ... number four ...etc ...etc ...etc ............................
.....................etc and when you finally reach deep enough into the numbered list of killers where accidental deaths or murders from firearms is our country will no longer need protection from tyrants because they will have already been found guilty of murder and killed or fled the scene to save themselves from prosecution and death.

I hope everythings going ok with you Amaranth.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Heres an interesting article.. a bit off topic but in line with the idea of education, belief and manipulation of facts.
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/e...20Is%20A%20Lie#

Originally Posted By: the Event Chronicle
Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie

I assume that includes what they are teaching. They certainly seem to be using some rather far fetched examples. Taking the first one. They are showing a picture of a metal hammer with a broken wooden handle which was supposedly found embedded in 400 million year old rock. But the hammer head is not rusted completely away and the handle is not rotted completely away. I'm afraid that when I lose a hammer the head begins rusting almost immediately and the wooden handle rots in just a year or 2. I don't think that things were that much different 400 million years ago. Now if they are young earthers they say that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. In that case the rock must have been formed directly by God. I'm not sure why he bothered to form a rock with a broken hammer embedded in it. I'm afraid that it is hard to support their claims on the basis of this 'find'.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
I'm not sure why he bothered to form a rock with a broken hammer embedded in it. I'm afraid that it is hard to support their claims on the basis of this 'find'.


Obviously the hammer was left there by the Devil when he was "planting" fossils to confuse believers.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Interestingly some of the corresponding articles attribute discrepancies and disbelief to bad archaeology. Possibly the carbon dating process supposedly used is inadequately inaccurate or improperly used or just outright fabricated.

Who knows. Might be we just assume what we are told by the accepted authority is absolute. That way we can poo poo anything we don't want to believe that may contrary to the status quo as it's dictated by authority and appears in a book. Seems to work for Christianity wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, I followed the article down farther and I'm not sure what the author is trying to prove, since he runs down both evolutionists and creationists. I'm not sure what other way the universe could have come into existence.

He is also accepting the human foot prints alongside dinosaur foot prints from down in Texas. I understand that at least one major creationist web site has accepted that those are fakes.

I didn't see any place where the author stated how the dates were established. For most of them carbon dating wouldn't work. It isn't useful for anything past around 50,000 years.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
LOL , heres a gun control point to ponder for all of those who
don't believe in any form of religion or those who
do believe in a form of religion , and even for
those who have or have chosen to design their own
specific form of religion because all other forms
of religion just don't fit into their lifestyle or desires.

what the kings in what is now the europe used to do was
to impose a religion onto its peoples , there really
wasn't any free speech rights protecting speech similar
to what is in the several comments above that are
uncredibly attempting to dismiss the values of religion.

statements such as those above would have you burnt on
a stake if you were a man , or drowned on a stake as the
tides roll in if you were a woman.

that's what the british tyrants used to do to the scottish
because they wanted the scottish people to practice the episcopalian religion and the scottish people wanted to practice the protestant religion.

and as they watched the young scottish girls drown as
the tides rolled in.

one of the girls said as they pulled her head out of the water
their mothers and family and friends pleading for them to say
God save the king.
she uttered
God save the king if he will...

they then told her to renounce her faith and to swear her
faith to the episcopalian faith.

her unwanted reply that brought her to death.
I am a child of christ.

both these religions are supposed to be centered
around christ.

so you even had christians killing christians because
of a difference in their respective religions.

and the binding factor was fear , the tyrants used fear to
control all aspects of your life including any beliefs that
you might have , you dare not open your mouth to utter a word
against the king or against God.

the right to fight in the us constitution was placed there
so that this type of tyranny and oppression would never find
a foothold in the us the way it did in the europe.

i'm not going to take the bait you guys have on your fishing
lines but the next time you go for a walk , think about the
lives of those who have walked before you and those who have
sacrificed their life so that you can have the freedoms
that you have today and look back at
your footprints that you will leave.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul
think about the
lives of those who have walked before you and those who have
sacrificed their life so that you can have the freedoms
that you have today and look back at
your footprints that you will leave.
I have no desire to become a martyr, nor fight other peoples battles so their lives become better without any contrasts to stimulate their desires to choose a state of mind.

Yes there are plenty of Hero's to show us that if you put your mind to it, that not only is self realization possible, but that it (understanding thru experience) is superior to complacency and any logic that follows the thought of "I'll just accept what anyone tells me as truth without any need to experience anything for myself." Gun control or any other type of control implies a lack in the capabilities of man to survive the attributes (like weapons of war) of a civilization that creates destructive weapons to protect itself from one another. IF mankind is unable to get along in the first place then perhaps it shouldn't be able to arm itself or create anything to harm itself. But the obvious rationale, is that no matter how intelligent one is, self destruction seems to be inclusive of fear and the need to follow any worst case scenario within the imagination.

We are taught to fear, not taught to understand ourselves or to even master our fears. We are taught to compare and judge ourselves which often leads to competition that isn't inspired by creativity but rather self worth. Psychological profiling and segregation are part and parcel to education, social, political and even religious belief.

All authorities of government in history have used weapons of all kinds. From words to rocks spears, swords, arrows, guns and to those of mass destruction to kill anyone who threatens a particular social idealism or the ground upon which it is created and practiced. The simple fact is, no matter what the state of the hierarchy, whether put into the right or wrong hands, innocent people die when they (weapons of any kind) are used for personal protection or for righteous protection.

Man fears man and there is not nearly as much attention put upon understanding the nature of man as there is in accepting that man is dangerous and needs protection from himself.

So, History shows us that man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results. Why continue walking in the shoes of man that perpetuates the same habits that don't produce any better results in self understanding or the understanding of ones relationship with each other or the universe?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Hi TT , how is everything in the world and in the universe today? ... LOL

Quote:
So, History shows us that man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results. Why continue walking in the shoes of man that perpetuates the same habits that don't produce any better results in self understanding or the understanding of ones relationship with each other or the universe?


why continue?
because -- man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results.

history is our guide book , we look at history and we either
learn from history or we relive history.

I am really concerned with the amount of immigrants moving
into the europe and the economic results that are a result of the sudden and prolonged care for these immigrants by the nations that are accepting these immigrants into their countries and my main concern is centered around the prejudice and treatment and the lack of caring that the
europe nations are showing these immigrants.
and i'm seeing similarities between the turn of the
last century around ... ww1

people trying to protect their culture / way of life.
the immigrants are just trying to survive and so they flee
the war zones.

lets just skip the wars this time and take them in.

some of our best us citizens were / are immigrants , we
all came from immigrant ancestors no matter what country
we live in now.

but we should drop any preference as to religion as this will
and is causing ill feelings towards the immigrants.
they should have a right to their choice of religion and
to practice their chosen religion but they
do not have the right nor does anyone else have the right to
cause people to take down or remove religious icons or buildings to satisfy specific religions.

it may come to the point that the immigrants will be met at
the borders and the women with children and the children and the old and sick will be allowed into the country but the
able bodied men and women will be handed arms and ammunition and pointed back towards the country that they fled from and told to go and fight for what is yours and what food you can find or kill for and when you win you can come back for your family.

it could get that way when the people of a nation decide that
there just isn't enough to support them all.

of course something will have to be done about the economies
of the world to prevent people from joining the wars and warring factions in order to have a income because what would have been their jobs that their fathers worked at were all shipped to the low wage nations by those planning all of these wars.






















































3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results.


Isn't doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result one of the signs of insanity?

Quote:
it could get that way when the people of a nation decide that
there just isn't enough to support them all.


That has a ring of familiarity to it.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-greatest-...=ODAwNjg1ODAwS0


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
but what about when you roll the dice?

same thing , different results.

I think the reason they left their homes was because of
the thunderbirds as pictured in the below image.



which may also be why the people vanished.

I certainly would.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
and the binding factor was fear , the tyrants used fear to
control all aspects of your life including any beliefs that
you might have , you dare not open your mouth to utter a word
against the king or against God.

the right to fight in the us constitution was placed there
so that this type of tyranny and oppression would never find
a foothold in the us the way it did in the europe.


I haven't seen anything in the constitution that provides a right to fight. In fact the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, is basically to keep the government from imposing extreme measures that would require fighting.
Originally Posted By: US Constitution
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The first amendment specifically addresses the subjects you mentioned, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The first clause, freedom of religion, is meant to keep any form of religion from being forced on any body. The second clause, freedom of speech, allows anybody to talk against the government. The Supreme Court is usually pretty good about enforcing those clauses. In fact they have caused a lot of grief to people who are trying to 'protect' things a lot of people think are good. Things like school prayer and religious monuments on public property.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul

So, History shows us that man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results. Why continue walking in the shoes of man that perpetuates the same habits that don't produce any better results in self understanding or the understanding of ones relationship with each other or the universe?
Ignorance
Originally Posted By: paul

why continue?
When man continues to do the same thing over and over again with the same results.

history is our guide book , we look at history and we either
learn from history or we relive history.

Ergo, the repetition of similar outcomes means man is not learning anything new. Mostly running on the assumption that rearranging the same reasoning at the level in which the problem was created might create an alternate outcome.
Originally Posted By: paul

I am really concerned with the amount of immigrants moving
into the europe and the economic results that are a result of the sudden and prolonged care for these immigrants by the nations that are accepting these immigrants into their countries and my main concern is centered around the prejudice and treatment and the lack of caring that the
europe nations are showing these immigrants.
and i'm seeing similarities between the turn of the
last century around ... ww1

people trying to protect their culture / way of life.
the immigrants are just trying to survive and so they flee
the war zones.

lets just skip the wars this time and take them in.
I don't know how accurate the report is, but I recently read an article where in Sweden the majority of the rape incidents among Swedish women are committed by 2% of the Muslim men. They freely call Swedish women "Whore" because they do not submit to their structure of beliefs and cover themselves as required by Muslim law, giving free license for Muslim men to rape them.
Originally Posted By: paul

but we should drop any preference as to religion as this will
and is causing ill feelings towards the immigrants.


Originally Posted By: paul

some of our best us citizens were / are immigrants , we
all came from immigrant ancestors no matter what country
we live in now.
That was then and this is now.
Originally Posted By: paul

but we should drop any preference as to religion as this will
and is causing ill feelings towards the immigrants.
they should have a right to their choice of religion and
to practice their chosen religion but they
do not have the right nor does anyone else have the right to
cause people to take down or remove religious icons or buildings to satisfy specific religions.
Or demand others take up their beliefs or punish those who don't.
Originally Posted By: paul

it may come to the point that the immigrants will be met at
the borders and the women with children and the children and the old and sick will be allowed into the country but the
able bodied men and women will be handed arms and ammunition and pointed back towards the country that they fled from and told to go and fight for what is yours and what food you can find or kill for and when you win you can come back for your family.

it could get that way when the people of a nation decide that
there just isn't enough to support them all.

of course something will have to be done about the economies
of the world to prevent people from joining the wars and warring factions in order to have a income because what would have been their jobs that their fathers worked at were all shipped to the low wage nations by those planning all of these wars.


I kinda get a feeling the U.N. is already herding people as a shepherd would his animals...




















































[/quote]


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
but we should drop any preference as to religion as this will
and is causing ill feelings towards the immigrants.
they should have a right to their choice of religion and
to practice their chosen religion but they
do not have the right nor does anyone else have the right to
cause people to take down or remove religious icons or buildings to satisfy specific religions.

Amen, except that religious icons or buildings should not be tolerated as government symbols. Anybody should be able to put up any sort of religious symbol they want to, on their property, but not on public property. The government should not advance or deny any religious view. The First Amendment was devised to keep the US government from doing just that.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
good news , but I don't think its new news because I
remember hearing about this a while back.

on the cbs evening news a few days back there was a story
about a new smart gun technology.

where the firearm will not fire unless the owner has his
fingerprints on the trigger .. and if this tech works then
a lot of children playing with their parents guns wont get killed or injured accidentaly.

the story states that every 30 minutes or so a child is
killed or injured in the us each year.

48 per day * 365 days = 17,520 children a year.
that is a lot of injuries because the deaths are
apx 600 ( high estimate )

I still think training people and parents and even children
in the proper way to operate and store a firearm would
be the better idea.

because there will still be loads of the non tech weapons
laying around peoples houses on dressers and in unlocked drawers and in glove compartments in cars etc...

its not the guns fault in a accidental child gun shooting its
the parents fault for not properly securing the weapon.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


and respecting can be written as acknowledging a religion.

the government should not acknowledge any form of religion
and should not deny any form of religion and should not
prohibit any citizen of the united states to practice his
religion as long as his religious practices do not interfere
with another citizens religious practices.

ie ... your rights stop where my rights begin.

if you are in my country then you are subject to the
laws of my country.

as for the traditional Christmas decorations and holiday
greetings and the outward practicing and expressing the
holiday cheer and so on ... if you don't like the holiday
that my country has traditionally held every year then
if your not a prisoner in the us and you have the ability
then you can leave my country if you so wish.

if I were to visit your country I wouldn't expect that
your country would stop its traditional holidays just
because I might not like them.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
and religious monuments on public property.


the pharos were worshiped as gods .... tear em down?



ummmmm ... this too?



why stop there right?



and yes theres more right?



I can just imagine the results if your suggestion to remove religious monuments from public places were to become a globalist pursuit.














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Ah yes Paul, I agree with you, but somehow you twist my statements to be ridiculous. I don't see any place in my post about destroying cultural icons. I was advocating separation of church and state. The state should not support any religion. Obviously there are many states around the world that do, but that just makes it harder on their people.

And as far as keeping religious symbols off of public property here in the US I was thinking more of a specific example here in Oklahoma. Several years ago a 10 commandments monument was placed on the capitol grounds. It was a donation and was installed with private money. However a suit was filed and this year the state supreme court ruled that it violated the state constitution. So it was removed to a different location. Of course when it was first placed there it kind of opened a can of worms. A satanic group asked for permission to place a satanic monument on the capitol grounds. As far as I can see they had every right to do so. If you are going to allow one religion to place a monument on public property you need to allow all religions to do so.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
but somehow you twist my statements to be ridiculous.


Quote:
Things like school prayer and religious monuments on public property.


and that's why I only posted pictures of religious monuments
on public property.

Quote:
Several years ago a 10 commandments monument was placed on the capitol grounds.


I remember that and at the time I knew that the state would
and should remove it.

else they would need to annex the fairgrounds property to house
monuments from all of the thousands of religions.

LOL

did the satanist build their monument or were they simply
trying to make the same point that the us constitution made
perhaps trying to keep the state out of religion as it is supposed to be.

a state government consist of people , that work for the state.
the state buildings and state property are places where the people that work for the state occupy as they work.

a religion consist of people , that practice a religion.
the religious buildings and religious property are places where the people that practice a religion occupy as they
practice their religion.

so the people should not think of any government building or property as being a place where they might find a religious monument because the us constitution clearly defines the connection between religion and the government , even state governments are denied connection between religion and government by the us constitution as you have pointed out.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
did the satanist build their monument or were they simply
trying to make the same point that the us constitution made

They showed plans for it, and after the state was ordered to remove the 10 commandments I think I saw a story that they were looking for some other place to put it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
they may not have been satanist at all then , they may have
simply figured that what they did was the best and quickest way to keep the state government out of religion.

and it worked.
did they find any eyes of newts or anything like that
scattered around the capital building grounds?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
By the way, The pyramids are not religious items. They were built by Joseph for grain storage during the 7 fat years, so it would be available for the 7 lean years. I know this because Dr. Ben Carson has said so. Dr. Carson wants to be the President of the United States.

CNN:Carson's theory: Egypt's pyramids stored grain

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
From what you say, he qualifies.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5