Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Demagoguery is just as idiotic as the ‘protection’ argument, and serves solely to undermine the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.Your gullibility is showing.
Really...all of the data I include vs.....you are gullible...great argument.....no wonder you guys have to resort to dragging the dead bodies in front of cameras....the Constitution and Bill of Rights defeat your goals, the actual statistics defeat you....common sense defeats you....
But those dead bodies...they sure do get headlines....does the blood wash off easily?
"Gun aficionados often frame the debate in terms of protection..."
Which of course is idiocy.
One cannot be compelled to ‘justify’ the exercising of a right as some sort of a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, citizens have the right to possess firearms independent of any ‘justification’ or the opinion of others as to the appropriateness or wisdom of the act of possessing firearms.
supporting torture in violation of their own right against cruel and unusual punishment.
supporting torture in violation of their own right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry, it wasn't torture...ask the three Vietnam Pows, two of whom recieved the Congressional Medal of Honor, who were both tortured and waterboarded....they have no problem with water boarding...I'll side with these experts....
Japanese soldiers were tried for war crimes and executed because they waterboarded American POW's. Sen McCain who was one of those Vietnam POW's said that it was torture.
When I was researching my book, “Courting Disaster,” I interviewed many of them, including Col. Bud Day, who received our nation’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor, for his heroic escape from a North Vietnamese prison camp.
When Day was returned to the prison, his right arm was broken in three places and he had been shot in the hand and thigh during his capture. But he continued to resist interrogation and provide false information — suffering such excruciating torture that he became totally physically debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. In short, Day is an expert on the subject of torture. Here is what he says about CIA waterboarding:
“I am a supporter of waterboarding. It is not torture. Torture is really hurting someone. Waterboarding is just scaring someone, with no long-term injurious effects. It is a scare tactic that works.”
I asked Day in an e-mail what he would say to the CIA officer who waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if he had the chance to speak with him. Day replied immediately: “YOU DID THE RIGHT THING.”
Like Day, Col. Leo Thorsness was awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War. He experienced excruciating torture during his captivity — his back broken, his body wrenched apart. He says what the CIA did to al-Qaeda terrorists in its custody was not torture:
“To me, waterboarding is intensive interrogation. It is not torture. Torture involves extreme, brutal pain — breaking bones, passing out from pain, beatings so severe that blood spatters the walls . . . when you pop shoulders out of joints.. . . In my mind, there’s a difference, and in most POWs’ minds there’s a difference.. . . I would not hesitate a second to use ‘enhanced interrogation,’ including waterboarding, if it would save the lives of innocent people.”
Another torture victim who supports waterboarding is Adm. Jeremiah Denton — the POW who famously winked the word “T-O-R-T-U-R-E” in Morse code during a North Vietnamese propaganda interview. It was the first message to the outside world that American prisoners were being tortured. Denton later received the Navy Cross for this courageous and costly act of defiance, for which he paid dearly when his captors figured out what he had done. I asked Denton if he thought waterboarding was torture. He told me:
“No, I think it’s persuasive.. . . The big, monstrous difference here is that the gentlemen we are waterboarding are people who swore to kill Americans. They will wreak any kind of torture just for the hell of it on anybody. When they are captured by the U.S., and we know or have reason to believe that they know of a subsequent event after 9/11, if you don’t interrogate them, more misery will take place.. . .Waterboarding is not an evil. Some of the things they did to us were torture. I passed out a dozen times from torture. We’re not exerting that kind of excruciation.”
Hasn't made us any safer so far.
OTOH, other cultures who don't worship guns don't get shot near as often as Americans do.
unusual punishment like waterboarding.
unusual punishment like waterboarding.
Harsh yes....should not be used on lawful POWS....but for unlawful terrorist head choppers...sure thing...it gets them to talk, leaves no harm, they are not injured, and suffer no long term side effects...the worst that happens...they have to dry off after the session.....
I'll take that over 3,000 people being murdered....or the rape, torture, and murder and head chopping we see from these terrorists....but if you are content with that....it's on you....
Former prisoner of war Lee Ellis explained the difference between the torture he experienced during the Vietnam War and modern-day waterboarding, and said that if he were president, he would approve the use of waterboarding.
“In waterboarding, you’re trying to find out the truth that’s going to save a lot of lives,” Ellis explained to The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas. “What the communists did to us was torture us to say a lie, to make a statement against our government, to make propaganda for their cause to defeat our country. So to me, there’s a huge difference there.”
“And waterboarding is not going to kill somebody. The idea is that they think they’re going to be killed, but obviously they’re not. We’re not going to let them die,” he continued…. “I think it can get us the information that may save thousands of lives, and if I were the commander in that situation, I would approve it and I would have it done,” Ellis said. “Use it very carefully — wisdom always helps — but I would certainly do it.”
Ellis is not alone among Vietnam POWs in supporting the enhanced interrogation techniques used on KSM and other terrorists after 9/11.
I can disprove this study for you. Go ahead and break into my home while I'm here.
Guns don t offer protection whatever the National Rifle Association says Science The Guardian
The Founders made sure that the PEOPLE would have access to guns to ensure that when our government switched from being legitimate to illegitimate, we could do something about it.
The Founders also passed a law requiring that all firearms be registered.
You were supposed to go down to the court house and shoot a few fence posts to prove it worked OK.The Founders made sure that the PEOPLE would have access to guns to ensure that when our government switched from being legitimate to illegitimate, we could do something about it.
The Founders also passed a law requiring that all firearms be registered.
They did? Where? I see nothing requiring registration weapons that at that time didn't have anything even resembling a serial number. How can you possibly register a weapon that has no identification marks?
You know....you anti gunners know that the numbers of gun murders are 8-9,000 a year....if you have read gun debates here on U.S. message....
You also know that the average number of times a year a gun is used to save a life or stop a violent criminal attack is 1.6 million times a year...
So...you have to hide the truth...you only point out the problem with guns, knowing full well the numbers prove that guns save more lives than they take....
You guys....I would say mean things about you and your tactics...but it is Thanksgiving.....
Jesus wept....I very much hope these weren't the amazing, startling, groundbreaking stats you wanted me to see!!!
The US has the most liberal gun laws in the world, so if they were effective at saving lives, we would see that reflected in the statistics, no?
It is VERY easy to see how many lives guns save, and here it is:
So tell us what YOU see in this picture, Bill.
The Founders made sure that the PEOPLE would have access to guns to ensure that when our government switched from being legitimate to illegitimate, we could do something about it.
The Founders also passed a law requiring that all firearms be registered.
They did? Where? I see nothing requiring registration weapons that at that time didn't have anything even resembling a serial number. How can you possibly register a weapon that has no identification marks?
And his answer to that question is, at the very least, compelling. Winkler argues that “gun rights and gun control are not only compatible; they have lived together since the birth of America.”
Winkler goes on to say, “The founding fathers instituted gun control laws so intrusive that no self-respecting member of today’s N.R.A. board of directors would support them. Early Americans denied the right to gun ownership even to law-abiding people if they failed a political test of loyalty to the Revolution. The founders also declared that free white men were members of the militia and, as such, were forced to appear with their guns at public ‘musters’ where government officials would inspect the weapons and register them on public rolls. When pressing public necessity demanded it, the founding fathers were also willing to impress guns from law abiding citizens, even if those citizens were left without guns to defend themselves from a criminal attack.”
Winkler cites some examples of the more strict and extreme regulations the founders supported. He writes, “they supported forcible disarmament of slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race out of fear that these groups would use guns to revolt against slave masters,” and in Maryland, before the revolution, “at least one colony, Maryland, passed a law barring Catholics from possessing firearms.”
John R. Lott Jr. says:
Dear Adam:
Here is an email that Clayton Cramer sent me about all this. He wrote this in response to a review that appeared on your book and he said that I could show this to others.
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have been increasingly curious about Adam Winkler's Gunfight, reviewed by Jonathan Karl [October 17, "Courtroom Showdown"]. Mr. Karl may be impressed with it, but increasingly, I am not. On pp. 166-167, Winkler discusses my research on "bans on concealed firearms" which he characterizes as "No gun control law was more common in the late 1800s." He characterizes my work as
concluding that "The southern roots of concealed carry laws" were not designed to oppress African Americans. He cites p. 7 of a paper on my web site at [xxxx] as support for that claim. Indeed, I do make that statement concerning the concealed carry laws adopted in the period before the Civil War.
But somehow, Professor Winkler missed what was on p. 1 of that same paper of mine that he cited: "After slavery ended, the Southern states again took the lead in the development of laws regulating the carrying of handguns. The reasons for these post-Civil War laws are clearly stated, and not even controversial among historians of Reconstruction. If the freed slaves were allowed to carry guns, they would be in a position to defend themselves from Klansmen and more willing to demand their equal rights as citizens."
Perhaps Winkler intended to only refer to the antebellum concealed carry laws in his characterization of my work--but why start out one paragraph on this topic with, "No gun control law was more common in the late 1800s" and the other with the comparison to "the Klan raids after the Civil War, [] designed to oppress African Americans"?
He bounces from a discussion of postbellum concealed carry laws to antebellum and then back to postbellum--and characterizing my research on the antebellum laws as entirely demolishing the racial motivations of concealed weapon laws. This is directly contrary to what I wrote in the work Winkler cites. It leaves me wondering how accurate the rest of Gunfight can be, if something this straightforward slipped past Winkler.
Very Truly Yours,
Clayton E. Cramer
