jcd11235

Not at all. Even with a ban you are free to keep and carry a gun. You only face the consequences if you brandish or use it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I did, but perhaps my explanation was too complicated for some readers to understand. Please forgive me and allow me to simplify. If a passenger had a pistol that day, chances are nothing would have changed, under the premise that people do not commit violent acts simply because they have guns. OTOH, if you want to argue that guns do indeed cause violence, then one could infer from that premise that the outcome would have been different. (Personally, I'm not of the opinion that guns cause violence.) Quit trying to use emotional arguments. Providing a definition is hardly an emotional argument. You are the one that brought up federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents, not me. Those folks are not in the business of self defense, they are in the business of threat neutralization. There is a big difference. Self defense involves actions required to escape a threat. Self defense does not imply threat neutralization unless other reasonable options for escaping the threat are not available. Threat neutralization is the purview of professionals, not, generally, civilians. Do you even read posts prior to replying? Perhaps you'd care to link to anywhere that I said I support bans. What I said was that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited, as interpreted and explicitly stated by the SCOTUS. I also said that the SCOTUS, not you or I, has the final say w/r/t interpreting US law, including the Constitution. That power was granted to the SCOTUS by the Constitution. You do recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, do you not? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, it's certainly not less than a pejorative! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, you can't. You can demonstrate that the apple accelerates at ~32 f/s, but you cannot prove that the mass of the earth is, in fact, the cause of the observed acceleration. Of course, if you want to claim that your experiment does, in fact, prove gravity, then AGW can be (and has been) proven with similar observed correlations in the same manner. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Waiting on the chorus of denunciations we hear whenever someone uses a name like that for the current president.... Like, for example, Obushma? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That doesn't prove Newton's law of gravity, though. At best, it shows that Newton's law of gravity makes predictions that are consistent with the results of experiments that Newton did. The law of gravity has never been proven. It has only withstood many, many experimental attempts to disprove it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, I dodged nothing. I addressed your question. Have you considered the possibility that they may have to deal with aggressors who bear something more dangerous than a box cutter? There is also a big difference between self defense and threat neutralization. Federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents are in the business of neutralizing threats, not just self defense. The term for ordinary citizens who are out to neutralize threats is vigilante. No, that's exactly the opposite of my assertion. I've said all along that the Constitution trumps both your opinion and my opinion. The SCOTUS, who are empowered by Article III of the Constitution to have final say in the interpretation of US law, including the Constitution, have stated unequivocally that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited. It doesn't matter how many founding fathers you quote, the decisions of the Supreme Court trump their (the framers') writings (e.g. the Federalist Papers). See above. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Dividing by zero is an undefined operation. Your conclusion is therefor unjustified. Edit: Shropshire beat me to it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Actually, it is 100% correct. There are many ways to prove that 0.999…999… is exactly equal to 1. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Exactly how did you reach this conclusion? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did you miss the point entirely or simply choose to ignore it? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If you are referring to my comment that if someone was not willing to fight without their gun, I wouldn't rely on them to fight with their gun, either, then I already addressed that in this post. Do you need me to explain the relevance? (

Currently the poll is Left: 16, Right: 12. A larger proportion of riders have their front brake lever on the right side than I expected to see. Thanks for the responses. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Apparently you're not aware that the US produces more than twice as much oil daily as Iran (Source 1, Source 2). If they don't need it (according to you), why do we? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Could you tell me exactly what "crack" you are referring to, one gun owner to another? To the best of my knowledge, I made no such comment. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I hope the hypothetical assailant jumps to that same incorrect conclusion.

Is that an ass licking joke, or do I just have a dirty mind? Can't both be true? Edit to add: Thanks for offering up another outstanding sig line! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, since you bring it up - I mean the fingers portion of your post, should we make guesses as to which answer you chose? I can't help but to notice that you seem to like stirring shit up. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, we have not. I looked at a few web sites, all quoted the debt at 11.5 trillion, well here 11,515,064,224,509.82, but this is old news, it's growing by around $7,000,000 a minute. It's not as though the debt was only $1.5 trillion a year ago. We didn't just increase it by $10 trillion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sin barrier Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, we have not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's a bit early for you to be witty, don't you think? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's just it. He wouldn't be confronting a blade while unarmed. His belt would be an adequate weapon. The use of flexible weapons, such as a belt, isn't uncommon. They wouldn't be my first choice, since I haven't trained with them, but I'm well aware of the potential of such weapons. What I do have training with, and would use confidently if necessary, is yawara sticks. Many common articles can be effectively used as improvised yawara sticks (e.g. sturdy pens, hairbrushes, roll of coins, tightly rolled magazines, etc.). Against a box cutter, I would be happy (well, as happy as one can be when in a position where one must resort to violence) with any of those items as a weapon, although I'm more likely than not to have on my person something that would work even better. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The will to fight does not generally lie with the gun; it lies with the person. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If someone is willing to commit a violent act (justified or otherwise), if they don't have access to a gun, they'll use whatever weapons are at their disposal. Do you disagree? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!