- Messages
- 2,946
- Reactions
- 1,924
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.
Unfortunately, our legislators took the same oath to uphold the Constitution as well. It's clear they don't take that oath seriously as they pass law after law that violates the Constitution to keep their jobs and maintain power.The Evil Left seems to be totally unaware that our military is sworn to defend the Constitution-- not illegal laws, regardless as to whether any law was passed by Congress and signed by the sitting President. The government can indeed promulgate an unconstitutional law, and such a law will be "constitutional" until somebody takes it to Court. Sick Willy Klantoon's 1994 gun ban was unconstitutional all over it. It stood for ten years because nobody had the testicular fortitude to sue it. The Supreme Court was liberal; it was certainly a possibility that the Court could have decided that for the People to own black rifles was illegal and by extension, that the ownership of any firearm was illegal. So we waited for the ten-year sunset, and George W. Bush made no effort to keep it in place. Had we had a Marxocrat in the White House in 2004, it's no question the ban would have been extended-- maybe even made permanent (which is what the Tyranny-crats want for today). Our Liberty is in great peril. We must vote in large numbers in November to send a loud & clear message to the cohort who abhors the Rights granted to us by God. If the Evil Left can destroy one Right, they can destroy them all...
Just goes to show you can make people believe the sun is going to rise in the west if you can skew the 'facts' enough to make it believable. Unfortunately there are a lot of weak minded fools that will believe this drivel as it suits their cause.Let's take a look at where the data is originating:
one source:
quote About | Gun Violence Archive
The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 2,500 media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA in an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization. unquote.
unfortunately, wiki states there are 8.1K LE agencies so which LE agencies, or which unbiased media, or government and commercial sources are they drawing data from? [notice the GVA's website doesn't state that information!]
second concept:
WAPO's researchers, one PhD from CA and the second PhD is in the UK who examined, quote: ... compared more than 64,000 responses from U.S. adults to mass-shooting data going back to 1966. unquote [did anybody notice there is only 64K responses in 22 years?] [also notice the researchers do not mention what question was asked for the response and was the same question asked over the last 22 years?]
third perception:
article quote, ...CDC. The most recent figures are for 2016. On the county-level we used 2007-2016 averages to allow for greater detail, but figures for some smaller counties were still suppressed for privacy reasons. We estimated those by comparing state totals and known county-level figures and redistributing the remainder among the unknown counties proportionally based on population. Totals for other gun-violence incidents are from the Gun Violence Archive. Their most recent annual figures are for 2017. On the district level, we used figures from Jan 1, 2016 to the week of May 20, 2018. unquote.
good heavens, how to assure the data presented is compatible at all, especially since the article states the researchers went back to 1966, yet CDC data is from '07-'16 was used; oh wait, GVA's data used was from '17 and other data was '16-'18; not to mention the author or researchers ESTIMATED data and extrapolated data to fill in.
dividing America...uh huh, commentary tis to be believed in the eyes of the beholder.