Monday, June 2, 2014

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration’s ‘Boundless’ Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration’s ‘Boundless’ Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration’s ‘Boundless’ Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law

 
 
Credit: WhiteHouse.govCredit: WhiteHouse.govThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today against the Obama administration in a major case testing the reach of federal power.

At issue in Bond v. United States was the conviction of Carol Anne Bond, a Pennsylvania woman sentenced to six years in federal prison under the Chemical Weapons Implementation Act after she smeared two toxic substances on the door knob and car door of a woman who had been carrying on an affair with Bond’s husband. According to Bond, the federal government exceeded its enumerated powers by making a federal crime out of her purely local offense. Today, the Supreme Court ruled in Bond's favor.
The Obama administration's "boundless" interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, "would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults."
Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to "an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband's lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water." The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. "There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond's common law assault."
Writing separately, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito concurred in the view that Bond's conviction should be overturned, but argued that Roberts' narrow ruling did not go far enough. In contrast to Roberts, these three justices argued that the chemical weapons law did cover Bond's conduct, and therefore the law should be struck down on constitutional grounds. "As sweeping and unsettling as the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 may be, it is clear beyond doubt that it covers what Bond did," wrote Justice Scalia. "So we are forced to decide—there is no way around it—whether the Act's application to what Bond did was constitutional.
I would hold that it was not."

The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: CO2 is good for you - definitely NOT a pollutant.

The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: CO2 is good for you - definitely NOT a pollutant.


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Sunday, June 1, 2014

CO2 is good for you - definitely NOT a pollutant.

It is a tragedy that there are a generation of children who have been forced fed false science; who have been taught that carbon (dioxide) is a pollutant.

So, in this post we are going to dispel some carbon dioxide mis-education.

Is atmospheric CO2 causing runaway warming?

This century atmospheric CO2 has risen from 369.14 in January 2000  to 398.72 in March 2014



In this time, as the (UN)Skeptical Pseudo-Science trend calculator shows (fig below), there has been no significant change in global temperature.

So atmospheric CO2 has risen by 8% whilst temperatures have fallen very slightly. With this in mind, why do we get statements like this:
Global Warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth's atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate Scientists say that we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The source of this incorrect alarmist statement is the site CO2 Now. (Also the source for the above graph of CO2.) But CO2 Now is not alone in pushing a false scare re (peer-reviewed) innocent CO2.

CO2 Greening the Planet

CO2 is plant food. We know that the increase in CO2 is greening the planet. This has been reported in peer reviewed journals Biogeosciences; Remote Sensing 5; the American Geophysical Union; Geophysical Research Letters and we also learn that Too Little Carbon Dioxide will destroy the Earth.

In a recent discussion, a mis-educated young person asked:
How can CO2 be greening the planet when there are droughts all around the world? 
Well, there are two flaws in this questions.

  1. The IPCC has ruled out CO2 induced climate change causing extreme weather. 
  2. Also
More CO2 Means Less Water Stress for Plants
Another major benefit of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is that plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores - through which they take in carbon dioxide and give off water vapor - as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations.  In addition, they tend to produce less of these pores per unit area of leaf surface at higher levels of atmospheric CO2.  Both of these changes tend to reduce most plants' rates of water loss by transpiration; and the amount of carbon they gain per unit of water lost - or water-use efficiency - therefore typically rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. 
Logarithmic Effect of CO2

Even if you agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes (some) warming, scientific studies tell us that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and so any future CO2 additions will have virtually no heating effect:

From Taxing Air: (P132)
Because it is a greenhouse gas, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, other things being equal, does cause warming. 
But other things are far from equal, two important considerations being, first, that the extra warming diminishes in magnitude rapidly (logarithmically) as carbon dioxide increases....
Model projection of the incremental increases in radiative heat trapped in the lower atmosphere (rather than lost to space) by injections of carbon dioxide in 20 ppm increments (MODTRAN atmospheric model, University of Chicago). Calculations are in terms of watts/ m2 of radiant heat increase (left hand axis scale).Translating each increment of heat trapped in the atmosphere into degrees Celsius depends upon the assumed sensitivity of the climate system, which remains controversial (see Fig. 17, p.105).The approximate temperature bar (top right) is based upon the IPCC’s estimated sensitivity of 3.3ÂșC for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Note that this temperature increase, whatever its precise value, is a constant that applies to all doublings of carbon dioxide, for example from 140 to 280 ppm, 280 to 560 ppm and 560 to 1120 ppm. 
Saturated Greenhouse Effect.

Physicist Dr Ferenc Miskolczi's peer reviewed paper theorises that a saturated greenhouse effect exists and further additions of greenhouses gasses will not cause more warming. This has been supported by another paper by Isaac and Wijngaarden published in the Journal of Climate. (Hockeyshtick)

No Support for the Falsified AGW Hypothesis.

Science has never shown any evidence, any peer reviewed paper, not even a hint of support for the AGW hoax. As Einstein said: (LINK)
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
Where does that leave us?

CO2 is good for you and innocent of all charges.

- - - - - - - - - -

The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions: 
40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of "CO2 famine" for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation

Panel: Jack Phillips Must Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

Panel: Jack Phillips Must Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

Citizen Must Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding, Colorado Civil Rights Panel Rules

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop (Photo: FairToAll.org)
On Friday, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled unanimously that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, must create wedding cakes for same-sex couples, even if doing so violates his beliefs. This victory for government coercion is the latest defeat for liberty and the rights of conscience.
It all started in 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said. The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple, “because of their sexual orientation.”
Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.
Since the 2013 ruling, Phillips stopped creating wedding cakes, though he continues to sell cookies and brownies at Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Phillips isn’t the only small-business owner in this situation. Families across the country are being hauled into court for living by their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As we note in our recent Backgrounder, florists, photographers, family bakeries, and adoption agencies, among others, have faced penalties and lawsuits or been driven out of business for working in accordance with their faith.
Indeed, a growing number of incidents demonstrate that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation create a climate of intolerance, intimidation and legal coercion for citizens who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
It’s time for state and federal policy to respect Americans’ ability to live and work in accordance with their beliefs. Even in states where marriage has been redefined, government should not coerce individuals and organizations to violate their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government compel others into celebrating their same-sex relationship.

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, And It Isn't Weapons

Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, And It Isn't Weapons

Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, & It’s NOT Weapons

Published on
Tags:|||
By Dan Roberts
Psychotropic Drugs
Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, & It’s NOT Weapons
AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used.
The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.
Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented over 4500 “ Mainstream Media “ reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.
The following list of mass shooting perpetrators and the drugs they were taking or had been taking shortly before their horrific actions was compiled and published to Facebook by John Noveske, founder and owner of Noveske Rifleworks just days before he was mysteriously killed in a single car accident. Is there a link between Noveske’s death and his “outting” of information numerous disparate parties would prefer to suppress, for a variety of reasons ?
I leave that to the individual readers to decide. But there is most certainly a documented history of people who “knew to much” or were considered a “threat” dying under extraordinarily suspicious circumstances.
From Katherine Smith, a Tennessee DMV worker who was somehow involved with several 9/11 hijackers obtaining Tennessee Drivers Licenses, and was later found burned to death in her car, to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Gary Webb, who exposed a CIA Operation in the 80′s that resulted in the flooding of LA Streets with crack cocaine and was later found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, but was officially ruled as a “suicide“, to Frank Olson, a senior research micro biologist who was working on the CIA’s mind control research program MKULTRA.
After Olson expressed his desire to leave the program, he was with a CIA agent in a New York hotel room, and is alleged to have committed “suicide” by throwing himself off the tenth floor balcony. In 1994, Olson’s sons were successful in their efforts to have their fathers body exhumed and re examined in a second autopsy by James Starrs, Professor of Law and Forensic science at the National Law Center at George Washington University. Starr’s team concluded that the blunt force trauma to the head and injury to the chest had not occurred during the fall but most likely in the room before the fall. The evidence was called “rankly and starkly suggestive of homicide.” Based on his findings, in 1996 the Manhattan District Attorney opened a homicide investigation into Olson’s death, but was unable to find enough evidence to bring charges.
As I said, I leave it to the individual readers to make up their own minds if Noveske suffered a similar fate. On to the list of mass shooters and the stark link to psychotropic drugs.
  • Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
  • Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
  • Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
  • Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
  • Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
  • Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
  • Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
  • Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
  • A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
  • Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
  • A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
  • Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
  • TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
  • Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
  • James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
  • Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
  • Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
  • Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
  • Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
  • Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
  • Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
  • Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
  • Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
  • Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
  • Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
  • Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
  • Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
  • (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
  • Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.
  • Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
  • Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
  • Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
  • A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
  • Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
  • Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
  • Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
  • Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
  • Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
  • Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
  • New York high school.
Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….
  • What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az
  • What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado
  • What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
  • What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Those focusing on further firearms bans or magazine restrictions are clearly focusing on the wrong issue and asking the wrong questions, either as a deliberate attempt to hide these links, or out of complete and utter ignorance.
Don’t let them! Force our elected “representatives” and the media to cast a harsh spotlight on this issue. Don’t stop hounding them until they do.
About Dan Roberts
Dan Roberts is a grassroots supporter of gun rights that has chosen AmmoLand Shooting Sports News as the perfect outlet for his frank, ‘Jersey Attitude’ filled articles on Guns and Gun Owner Rights.As a resident of the oppressive state of New Jersey he is well placed to be able to discuss the abuses of government against our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms as he writes from deep behind NJ’s Anti-Gun iron curtain. Read more from Dan Roberts or email him at DRoberts@ammoland.com You can also find him on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dan.roberts.18

Moms Demand Action caught red-handed exploiting suicides while publicly stating suicides aren’t their problem

Moms Demand Action caught red-handed exploiting suicides while publicly stating suicides aren’t their problem

Moms Demand Action caught red-handed exploiting suicides while publicly stating suicides aren’t their problem

Handgun - 750-420

Moms Demand Action are gun bullies. They lie and purposely engage in deceit to try to push their gun control agenda. One of their standard playbook lies is to conflate suicides with homicides and make it seem like crime is a bigger problem than it is. Now they have been caught with blood on their hands, stating they actually don’t care about suicides.
But their mindless minions don’t know – and mostly don’t care – about the truth. In response to a tweet that links to a previous article that correctly states that gun control doesn not reduce suicide, I received this tweet, saying I should “be honest” – that guns are the easiest, fastest way to commit suicide.

suicides - be honest - screenshot 02
It isn’t being dishonest to say that gun control policy has absolutely nothing to do with suicides. It’s iron-clad fact. No one disputes that 20,000 people a year commit suicide with guns in the United States, or that this is roughly half of approximately 40,000 total suicides. What is dishonest is when a crime like a mass shooting happens and gunbullies like Moms Demand Action grandstand on the graves of the dead, citing the public health problem of “gun violence” that they claim takes 30,000 lives per year, when 20,000 of these deaths are self-inflicted suicides and not a crime. This is further compounded when you publicly state suicides are not your problem to tackle. It is disingenuous at best & a purposeful, outright lie intended to deceive at worst. To make this claim is to pretend that banning so-called “assault rifles”, or restricting magazine capacity, or getting stores like Starbucks or Staples to ban guns at their premises is somehow connected to reducing these 20,000 suicides.

How many suicides, happen with so-called “assault rifles” with 100-round magazines at a Starbucks? Try zero.

While suicide may happen with a rifle or shotgun, it makes most logical sense that handguns would be used most often because of ease of maneuverability. Most firearm homicides are done hand guns, not rifles (6,371 handgun homicides and just 322 rifle homicides out of nearly 13,000 homicides in 2012). The Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Non-Vital Statistics Report from 2009 (Tables 10 and 18) reported 31,347 total firearm deaths in 2009, but of those, 18,735 were suicide by firearm deaths. There were 554 deaths from “accidental discharge of firearms.” The CDC statistics are very similar for 2010, showing “Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms” resulting in 19,392 deaths out of a total of 38,364 suicide deaths (table 10, p.23).

And yet, Moms Demand Action routinely cites 30,000 gun deaths, and routinely states that people are likely to use a gun to suicide vs defend themselves. They are happy to exploit the deaths of the hurting who have committed suicide to push their inane agenda (seriously, how is getting Starbucks, Staples, or McDonalds to make their stores “gun free zones” making anyone safer – especially when one considers that so many high-profile mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, like Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, etc.?), but they don’t promote policy that would help reduce suicides. In the following screen shots, Moms Demand Action cites suicides five different times as a big problem, 30,000 “gun deaths”, and so on.

Moms Demand - suicide - plug it

Furthermore, Moms Demand Action was caught outright stating that suicide was not their problem because they have too much on their hands trying to get “gun reform”(the new term they use when they mean “gun control”, which they avoid using because they know gun control has negative connotations). In this screen shot, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts is telling a member suicides aren’t their “mission”. The message is clear: Moms Demand Action will quote suicide figures to scare members about the “gun violence” problem, but aren’t willing to do anything about it.

 Moms Demand - suicide - hands full
And here, Moms Demand Action and Shannon Watts state guns are more likely to be used on yourself in suicide than they are to protect you from a criminal.

Moms Demand - suicide - more dangerous than bad guys

The tweet on the Moms Demand accout is a straight up lie; there are vastly more defensive gun uses than there are suicides, period. The tweet on the Shannon Watts account isn’t a straight up lie, but is purposefully deceitful. It is based on the following graph that was attached to the tweet. The graph compares justifiable homicides versus suicides. The problem: most defensive gun uses don’t result in “killing” the bad guy to “fend them off”. According to the CDC, there are 500,000 to 3 million defense gun uses per year. Contrast this with the 20,000 gun suicides the CDC cites, and the 9,000 gun homicides the FBI states, and even the 120,000 instances of non-fatal violent crime committed with a gun according to the Deartment of Justice, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and it’s clear that people lawfully defend themselves with guns more than all crime with guns, homicides and suicides – combined.

Academic peer-reviewed research in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide” by Dr Don Kates and Gary Mauser shows that gun availability and ownership rates have no correlation whatsoever with suicides. The study looks at 36 developed nations – virtually all with much stronger gun laws than the United States has –. and found many developed nations with higher suicide rates than the U.S. The authors state, “The mantra more equals more deaths and fewer guns equals fewer deaths is also used to argue that ‘limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides’. This assertion is directly contradicted by the studies of 36 nations, which find no… relationship”. Dr’s Kates and Mauser go on to say “There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. In the absence of firearms, people who are inclined to commit suicide kill themselves some other way.”

The fact that guns don’t cause suicides is evident in the U.S. by two facts: one, gun sales have been steadily climbing, and setting records in 2012, and then again in 2013; and two, the suicide rate in the U.S. has been declining for decades. Gun rights advocates are all for honesty in the so-called gun debate. It would be refreshing to see some from the other side. We have yet to see it. Dr’s Kates and Mauser also state that while guns don’t cause crime, what does drive crime are socio-cultural and economic factors. No one is addressing root causes of violence: gangs (which the FBI states is responsible for an “average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions” and up to 90% in some jurisdictions), drug abuse (the single greatest predictor of violence – with or without mental illness – according to psychiatrists), poverty, particularly urban poverty, and mental illness. If we want to really reduce violence and crime – not just control people and push meaningless cosmetic policies – then we need to address the causes.

ATOMIKTIGER: The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

ATOMIKTIGER: The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

 
The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. Examination of the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller shows this assumption to be incorrect.
Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that areprotected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.
Not so fast.
The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:
“Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus, page 1).
Notice it says “for lawful purposes”, plural, and then says “such as self-defense within the home”. This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller.
Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.
Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.
The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.
An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.
We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has – or could – rule that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicitly written letter of the ruling.
 

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 2

The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. In part one, we examined five lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment as laid out by the supreme Court in the landmark case, D.C. v Heller. Here in part two we take a look at further evidence that demonstrates the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends outside of the home.
In part one, we saw that the Court ruled the D.C. handgun ban violated one of many lawful purposes of the Second Amendment, “such as self-defense within the home” (emphasis added). We see further the Court lists at least five lawful purposes – hunting, militia duty, repelling a foreign invader, suppressing insurrection, and resisting tyranny – that involve or require activity outside of the home. We can conclude from this that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted to simply keeping a gun in the home.
Here in part two, we expand upon the core lawful purpose, which the Court specified in Helleris self-defense: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56). If one gets anything from the Heller decision, this must be it. The Court reiterated this finding in McDonald v Chicago in 2010, stating: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v.Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (Syllabus, p.1).
Self-defense can – and often does – involve a person outside of their home. Skeptics rely onreading into the Courts decision a limitation that the Court itself has not stated, postulating that “self-defense” might mean “self-defense… as long as you’re in your home; but nowhere else” because the Court struck down a law that prohibited guns in the home. But the Court itself did not specify this as the sole legitimate purpose, and this imagined limitation is artificially imposed in the minds of those that wish to limit others right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution.
The Court’s ruling in Heller sheds light on this. To recap, the Court thoroughly examines every word of the Second Amendment, defining it in historical context, legal precedent, and explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was viewed from English law to Colonial law, to the formation of the United States, post-ratification of the U.S. Constitution, through the post-Civil War era. It is clear from the historical documentation the people understood the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” (p.20). “They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p. 21). The Court notes that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p. 63). This means that understanding how the right to keep and bear arms at the time of ratification is critical to understanding what is protected in the Second Amendment today. There is no logical reason to conclude self-defense is limited solely inside one’s home, or that “self-preservation”, “repelling force with force”, or defending oneself suddenly stops because one is outside of the home.
Relevant to our understanding is the Court’s historical definition of what “keep” and “bear” meant. Keeping arms means to carry or have in one’s possession. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.” (p.9) The Court states: “the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons”” (p.8). “Bear arms” is synonymous with “carry arms”, “possess arms” and “have arms” (p. 14). “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation” (p.10). The Court says through examining historical source material, “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia” (p.11). In Heller, the Court concurs with its prior definition from Muscarello v. United States, “in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).
We can see that within the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment of self-defense the terminology means to keep arms on one’s person in case of confrontation and the need to defend oneself. To suggest the right to self-preservation or self-defense in the face of confrontation and potential bodily harm is limited solely to the home is absurd. The common person’s understanding of their protected right of self-preservation logically extends outside the home. This is also consistent with the five previously covered lawful protected purposes that involve or require activity outside the home.

Safeguards keeping the NSA from spying on Americans were removed by the Obama administration | The Verge

Safeguards keeping the NSA from spying on Americans were removed by the Obama administration | The Verge

Safeguards keeping the NSA from spying on Americans were removed by the Obama administration

According to a new report from The Washington Post, President Obama's administration sought to relax restrictions on National Security Agency surveillance in 2011, winning permission from a surveillance court to deliberately search for the intercepted phone calls and emails of citizens without a warrant. The court also reportedly extended the length of time that the NSA is permitted to store intercepted US communications to six years, up from five, and even longer under "special circumstances."
The 2011 decision overturns a 2008 ban on warrantless searches of the NSA's databases containing email and phone call records of American citizens and legal residents.
The Post's report comes as the Obama administration and the US intelligence community have made a concerted effort to reassure American citizens that surveillance programs strike the right balance between national security needs and respect for civil liberties.
As part of that PR effort the Obama administration and the US intelligence community declassified a secret court order in August, revealing that the NSA regularly collected thousands of emails and other communications each year belonging to US citizens with no connection to international terrorism. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, author of the declassified opinion, scrutinized the program and required the NSA to make procedural changes to protect civil liberties. But the restrictions were related to the agency's "upstream" collection methods, which pull data directly from internet cables, and not "downstream" collection from companies like Google and Yahoo, which the relaxed rules detailed by today's report from the Post concern.
Government officials confirmed to the Post that the administration had requested the lift on the ban, but would not acknowledge how many warrantless searches have been performed. According to the declassified FISA court order released in August, the NSA uses its PRISM data collection program to "acquire" more than 200 million "internet communications" each year, which largely come from companies like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.