5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

[Pop23]

...

True. And, there's no reason to punish people who have not broken any laws. I'm glad we agree on this and you'll stop calling for legal gun owners to be limited in the exercise of their rights.

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.

That is not what I understand...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]​

[/QUOTE]

We KNOW THIS. Nukes will continue to be regulated.

What is your point?

 

[Pop23]

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

It's not vaguely stated ... It's clearly written.

It's not up to the federal government to grant themselves power the Constitution strictly denies.
No one is asking for your permission nor approval of what you think is fine to do whatever you think is necessary.
You weren't granted the power to infringe on the People's rights either.

.​

Even constitional scholars say it's vaguely written.

Not all. Some find it quite specific

 

[defcon4]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

"Military grade weapon" is a buzz phrase. "Military grade" would be a select fire weapon. However to understand the 2nd Amendment one needs to consider the militia part with contemporary weapons since the listed weaponry in the below photo copy was contemporary at that time. The militia was not restricted to bow and arrow and the militia included all citizen white males between the ages of 18 - 45 years old.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

 

[Coyote]

...

They already are. They can't own nukes for example.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.

That is not what I understand...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]​

We KNOW THIS. Nukes will continue to be regulated.

What is your point?[/QUOTE]

Not just nukes.

 

[Pop23]

...

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.

That is not what I understand...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]​

We KNOW THIS. Nukes will continue to be regulated.

What is your point?

Not just nukes.[/QUOTE]

Battleships also.

 

[Coyote]

...
Learn the meaning of “arms”. You look silly

hmmm.."It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Yes, nukes will continue to be regulated.

You read that continued regulation is much more than the court intended.

That is not what I understand...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]​

We KNOW THIS. Nukes will continue to be regulated.

What is your point?

Not just nukes.

Battleships also.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if vehicles and ships classify as arms...just saying.

 

[2aguy]

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

 

[jillian]

AR-15 forces millions to crap their pants.

.​

because people who shouldn't have guns have them.

is that what you think the 2nd amendment is for? that whole "well-regulated militia" thing not resonate for you?

 

[2aguy]

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

Libel, slander and yelling fire when there is no fire are actual crimes and you can be punished for them.....just like you can be arrested for using a gun in a crime.....there are already common sense limits on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder......

 

[jillian]

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in
and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

 

[2aguy]

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

What is it with you asshats and the NRA...do you realize that the only reason the democrats put their hand up your ass to make you their puppets when you post stupid things like that is that the NRA gives money to Republicans...they don't care about dead kids...since they don't care about all the black kids in democrat voting districts being killed by the criminals they keep letting out of jail.....they just want to cut off money to Republicans....

You are the ones being used by the democrats....

 

[Aba Incieni]

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

What will you do when 5 thugs break into your home?

 

[2aguy]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

"Military grade weapon" is a buzz phrase. "Military grade" would be a select fire weapon. However to understand the 2nd Amendment one needs to consider the militia part with contemporary weapons since the listed weaponry in the below photo copy was contemporary at that time. The militia was not restricted to bow and arrow and the militia included all citizen white males between the ages of 18 - 45 years old.
View attachment 189509
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Scalia, in his opinion in D.C. v Heller, and his and Thomas's dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park specifically protect the AR-15 rifle since it is in common use for lawful purposes....and Heller cites Miller v United States to do the same...

 

[Pop23]

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

It is a lot more polite than Britain, Australia and Sweden these days....Those poor Swedish Bikini team members.....



We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You can’t really compare crime rates between countries due differences in

and clearly states well regulated...

And the term meant "in good working order" in the age that it was written. You MUST use the definitions that were in use at the time of the writing.

and consider weaponry in those times as well...

i have many times

there had been several multiple shot firearms and weapons at the time

the framers did not exclude them when they wrote the 2nd amendment


they did not write

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 except for the Girandoni

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

Libel, slander and yelling fire when there is no fire are actual crimes and you can be punished for them.....just like you can be arrested for using a gun in a crime.....there are already common sense limits on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder......

Yelling fire is only illegal when no fire exists.

 

[jon_berzerk]

They also didn't write that libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre was to be excluded from free speech either but it is.

I think they expected some common sense from their descendents. Otherwise - let citizens have rocket launchers, nukes and landmines.

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

What will you do when 5 thugs break into your home?

it was actually 7 that broke in

 

[Crepitus]

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

It's not vaguely stated ... It's clearly written.

It's not up to the federal government to grant themselves power the Constitution strictly denies.
No one is asking for your permission nor approval of what you think is fine to do whatever you think is necessary.
You weren't granted the power to infringe on the People's rights either.

.​

Even constitional scholars say it's vaguely written.

Not all. Some find it quite specific

Yeah......m no.

 

[Aba Incieni]

you can yell fire in a crowded theater however there may be consequences for doing so

fine a better example this one was a pointless dead end

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

What will you do when 5 thugs break into your home?

it was actually 7 that broke in

5, 7, or 2. Would like to know how the gunless plan to defend their families.

 

[Markle]

17 kids killed by an AR-15.

From the OP's source.

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can do anything illegal and there will be consequences. But it serves to make the point, none of those rights are unlimited. 2nd Amendmenters are the only folks I've seen who seem to think there should be no limits, regulation of or "infringement" of a right that is rather vaguely stated in an amendment.

Today's military grade armenents do not belong in civilian hands any more than nukes, landmines and rocket launchers. A good handgun is effective for defense. If you are such a poor shot you need high capacity magezine in a semi-automatic rifle to spray your home invader you have no business handling a gun.

And you keep confusing the AR-15 civilian rifle and other semi automatic rifles with military weapons...by the way, Miller v. United States specifically says that military weapons are the weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment....

It isn't a matter of being a poor shot you fucking doofus.....it is a matter of an idiot like you telling a family they only get 10 bullets to keep their family safe no matter who they are facing in a violent attack....

That you morons keep making posts like that one shows why you can't be trusted with gun Rights.

thanks for today's updated NRA propaganda of the day.

What will you do when 5 thugs break into your home?

it was actually 7 that broke in

5, 7, or 2. Would like to know how the gunless plan to defend their families.

indeed it is a good question

 

[Markle]

This entire thread is opinions. Or haven't you figured out that part yet?

Really?

The OP's source is not an opinion. It cites an exhaustive study done by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

YOUR posts may be an opinion but the source of the thread is not.