More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[Old_Trapper70]

Did you not blame man for causing the oceans to heat up?....Of course your claim that garbage is causing it is idiotic, but you have stated that some people, supposedly environmentalists want to do something about it....clearly you believe that man is altering the global climate but I can understand how you would want to distance yourself from your belief when you encounter someone who is asking for actual evidence instead of opinion pieces...

Problem is you have no evidence to support your own ignorance just as you have no evidence to support your false claims about me, or to refute anything I have said. Grow up fool, and at least try to pretend you are a man.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-t...e-can-affect-the-reef/rising-sea-temperatures

 

[Old_Trapper70]

You poor duped idiot...you just reinforce my opinion of liberals....do you just believe whatever the left tells you to believe with no thought whatsoever as to whether it is true or not? The NOAA tide gage in the Marshall Islands shows an increase of 1.43mm per year with a +- margin of error of 0.81mm...that works out to less than 15 cm per century....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

From the article you posted yet were too ignorant to be able to see, or comprehend:

"The reason for this is these islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," he said.

"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it onto the top of the island."

But Dr Kench says this does not mean climate change does not pose dangers.

"The land may still be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he asked.

Adelaide University climate scientist Professor Barry Brook says he is surprised by the findings.

"Sea levels are obviously rising - I think in the short term [the study] suggests that there's maybe more time to do something about the problem than we'd first anticipated," he said.

"But the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate much beyond what we've seen in the 20th century."

And Key West is sinking, not due to sea level rise, but due to the underlying geology....you people will believe anything so long as it goes along with your political leanings....

Is it not strange how it is always the fools like you that want to ignore reality that always seem to feel you have the high ground? Just what is this "underlying geology"? Could it be the coral reefs that is being destroyed by rising ocean temperatures, and ocean acidification?

http://www.newser.com/story/170376/key-west-could-be-underwater-by-2113.html

Mass extinction....bullshit. Mass extinction, by definition is the extinction of a significant percentage of the species on the planet...estimates are that earth is home to more than 8 million species...but lets call it 8 million for convenience sake....

During the late Devonian extinction it is estimated that 75% of the species on earth went extinct...
During the Permian extinction it is estimated that more than 95% of the species on earth went extinct.
During the Triassic / Jurassic extinctions it is estimated that about 25% of all the species on earth went extinct.
During the Ordovician-Silurian extinction it is estimated that about 85% of all the species on earth went extinct.

So there are roughly 8 million species on earth today...lets say that this "mass" extinction that we are supposed to be in is on the small side and about 25% of the species on earth are going extinct....that would mean that roughly two millionspecies are going to go extinct....now it is a bit much to ask you to name two million species so how about you name 100 that are in real danger of going extinct...then try to think of naming one million, nine hundred ninety nine thousand, nine hundred more just to reach the level of a smallish mass extinction and see how stupid the idea of a present mass extinction actually is...what it is is just more alarmist claptrap....which you seem to be gobbling up as fast as your high priests can feed it to you.

Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong? Well, as the Good Book says, a fool is forever.(
Proverbs 1:22: How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
See if you can wrap your wee little mind around this:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

"Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel."

BTW, did you ever find any examples of how Franklin, Jefferson, Adam Smith, or Christ, were not "liberals" as you define the term?

 

[palerider]

Problem is you have no evidence to support your own ignorance just as you have no evidence to support your false claims about me, or to refute anything I have said. Grow up fool, and at least try to pretend you are a man.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-t...e-can-affect-the-reef/rising-sea-temperatures

So you don't think man is altering the global climate?....OK. You gave me the impression that you did. Glad that you haven't been taken in by the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind.

 

[palerider]

BTW, did you ever find any examples of how Franklin, Jefferson, Adam Smith, or Christ, were not "liberals" as you define the term?

They were not liberals as we define the term today....modern liberalism is nothing more than socialism in any of its various guises, not to be confused with the political philosophy of Franklin, Jefferson, et al which today is known as classical liberalism which is what most folks call conservativism these days...a political philosophy that calls for very small, very unintrusive government, as well as economic freedom.

 

[palerider]

"Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

And you continue to demonstrate how utterly fooled you are...Again...I asked you to name 100 species that have gone extinct due to man....you point out that we are losing 1000, to 5000 species a year according to some article, but when asked to name just 1/1o of the claimed spaces going extinct, it is clear that you can't do it....and yet you wave your hands hysterically proclaiming mass extinction...

Can you even name 1/10 of the species claimed to be already extinct according to your handwaving hysterics?...According to your quote....1000 to 5000 species are going out per year....how many years has this been going on...and why is it that no one can even name a small fraction of these now extinct species? Fools believe whatever they are told...without bothering to verify for themselves.. One of the definitions of the word fool is an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm...clearly you are an enthusiast of man made catastrophe....you are a hysterical hand waver who can't produce any observed, measured, quantified evidence to support his claims...you can provide pictures of garbage floating in the oceans, but can't produce the first bit of evidence supporting your claim that it is raising the temperature of the oceans...same goes for your other claims....it seems that you invariably go with the explanation that fits your political leanings...not the explanation that is born out by observation, measurement, and quantification....

 

[Old_Trapper70]

And you continue to demonstrate how utterly fooled you are...Again...I asked you to name 100 species that have gone extinct due to man....you point out that we are losing 1000, to 5000 species a year according to some article, but when asked to name just 1/1o of the claimed spaces going extinct, it is clear that you can't do it....and yet you wave your hands hysterically proclaiming mass extinction...

LOL, and yet you have produced NOTHING to prove your rant right. I am not a biologist, and, like you, I rely on those who are. Now, if you think there is not a die off occurring then prove it. YOU say there are 8 million different species existing on earth now. Prove it.

Then too, you love to twist what others say to fit your own "head up your ass" ideology. I never claimed that "dead zones" were increasing ocean temperatures. What I did say was the man was causing these "dead zones", and man was helping to increase the rise in temperatures. It is like your asinine claims that I am a "Marxist". You have no proof of that, nor can you prove the Founding Fathers, or Christ, were not "Marxists". You rant and rave like the fool you are, and continue to keep your head up your ass, and not even look at real facts given to you.

However, you would rather live in your ignorance with your head up your ass smelling your own shit then to try and learn something.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...globally-due-climate-change-180953282/?no-ist

And, like in everything else, you will ignore that ones most popular that man has caused to go extinct such as the Dodo Bird, the Passenger Pigeon, the Tasmanian Devil, or the Tasmanian Tiger, the African Black Rhino, the Carolina Parakeet, or the Maui Dolphin, just to name a few. You are an ignorant ass who's arrogance drives you to your own fantasy world, and there is no cure for your stupidity:

http://www.extinctanimals.net/fascinating-extinct-animals.html

 

[Old_Trapper70]

They were not liberals as we define the term today....modern liberalism is nothing more than socialism in any of its various guises, not to be confused with the political philosophy of Franklin, Jefferson, et al which today is known as classical liberalism which is what most folks call conservativism these days...a political philosophy that calls for very small, very unintrusive government, as well as economic freedom.

Problem here is they were according to YOUR head up your ass definition. Conservatism, even as you want to see it, is dead if it ever existed. Christ, Jefferson, etc., believed in the wealthy paying for the expenses of government. The Founders believed in free education since an educated society was necessary for good government. They believed in providing for the poor, those in the hospital, orphans, widows, etc.

What you call "socialism" is basic Christianity, and caring for others, which you would deny. And what people call "conservatism" these days bears no resemblance to the Classical Liberalism of Jefferson. You might look into Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice", or even Hobbe's "Social Contract"

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm

https://www.mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

https://msu.edu/user/hallc/george/libvscon.html

"conservatism … is characteristically inarticulate, unwilling (and indeed usually unable) to translate itself into formulae or maxims, loath to state its purpose or declare its view. … conservatism becomes conscious only when forced to be so … conservatism arises directly from the sense that one belongs to some continuing, and pre-existing social order, … a club, society, class, community, church, regiment or nation – a man may feel towards all these things that institutional stance … in feeling thus engaged in the continuity of his social world – a man stands in the current of some common life. … The conservative instinct is founded in … the individual’s sense of his society’s will to live.
[end of quote]

Today’s conservative expresses a strong antipathy toward everything liberal, with justification, insofar as it is directed at the perverted modern-day pseudo-liberalism. However, much of the criticism directed at classical liberalism is unwarranted. Scruton actually damns the liberal influence which he sees as having also polluted the aims of the Conservative Party, as is evident in the next quote. He also belittles the idea of freedom, calling it the “great social artifact”, and identifies liberalism (not socialism, for good reasons) as the “principal enemy”.

1a … the Conservative Party has often acted in a way with which a conservative may find little sympathy. Most of all, it has begun to see itself as the defender of individual freedom against the encroachment of the state, concerned to return to the people their natural right of choice, and to inject into every corporate body the healing principle of democracy. These are passing fashions, well-meant, not always misguided, but by no means the intellectual expression of the conservative point of view. … The result has been … the wholesale adoption of the philosophy which I shall characterize in this book as the principal enemy of conservatism, the philosophy of liberalism, with all its attendant trappings of individual autonomy and the ‘natural’ rights of man. In politics, the conservative attitude seeks above all for government, and regards no citizen as possessed of a natural right that transcends his obligation to be ruled."

 

[palerider]

LOL, and yet you have produced NOTHING to prove your rant right. I am not a biologist, and, like you, I rely on those who are. Now, if you think there is not a die off occurring then prove it. YOU say there are 8 million different species existing on earth now. Prove it.

I'm not the one making claims of mass extinction...I am saying that there is no such thing going on and as proof, I present your inability to name even 100 of the claimed 1000 to 5000 species you are claiming are going extinct every year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm
http://www.calacademy.org/explore-science/how-many-species-on-earth
http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/874-million-species-on-earth-110823.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/24/3300326.htm

You really didn't know how many species are estimated to live here and yet you gobble up the catastrophic claims of mass extinction....and never bothered to see what actually qualifies as mass extinction, or how many species you could name that have gone extinct this year or last year, or the year before? The claims of mass extinction are hysterical, alarmist bullshit...nothing more.

Then too, you love to twist what others say to fit your own "head up your ass" ideology. I never claimed that "dead zones" were increasing ocean temperatures. What I did say was the man was causing these "dead zones", and man was helping to increase the rise in temperatures. It is like your asinine claims that I am a "Marxist". You have no proof of that, nor can you prove the Founding Fathers, or Christ, were not "Marxists". You rant and rave like the fool you are, and continue to keep your head up your ass, and not even look at real facts given to you.

So you do believe that man is helping with the rise in global temperatures....so now we are right back to you not being able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that belief....and apparently you are conflating pollution with climate change...they are two very different topics...one we can deal with...the other we can not other than to adapt as we always have.

However, you would rather live in your ignorance with your head up your ass smelling your own shit then to try and learn something.

Clearly it is you who is averse to learning something...my bet is that in spite of seeing the mathematical impossibility of mass extinction, you still believe...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...globally-due-climate-change-180953282/?no-ist

And reading this sort of thing, it is clear why you conflate pollution with climate change...your article clearly states that run off is responsible for dead zones....but run off has nothing to do with climate change.....run off could be addressed and perhaps curtailed except that climate change is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....and while climate change itself MAY exacerbate dead zones, there isn't the first shred of actual evidence that man has any effect on the global climate.

And, like in everything else, you will ignore that ones most popular that man has caused to go extinct such as the Dodo Bird, the Passenger Pigeon, the Tasmanian Devil, or the Tasmanian Tiger, the African Black Rhino, the Carolina Parakeet, or the Maui Dolphin, just to name a few. You are an ignorant ass who's arrogance drives you to your own fantasy world, and there is no cure for your stupidity:

All extinct due to hunting, and territorial pressure....nothing whatsoever to do with the climate....Unlike you, I can be sorry for the loss of the species, but I don't go off on a hysterical handwaving rant about mass extinctions which are not happening. I am not driven by emotion as you are and not prone to falling for hoaxes and scams with political origin and motivation.

http://www.extinctanimals.net/fascinating-extinct-animals.html

And from that you somehow believe that 1000, to 5000 species are going extinct every year and have been for decades or centuries which would be what would be happening if there were an actual mass extinction in progress...

 

[palerider]

Problem here is they were according to YOUR head up your ass definition. Conservatism, even as you want to see it, is dead if it ever existed. Christ, Jefferson, etc., believed in the wealthy paying for the expenses of government. The Founders believed in free education since an educated society was necessary for good government. They believed in providing for the poor, those in the hospital, orphans, widows, etc.

They believed in charity...not taxation at gunpoint to redistribute wealth...

What you call "socialism" is basic Christianity, and caring for others, which you would deny. And what people call "conservatism" these days bears no resemblance to the Classical Liberalism of Jefferson. You might look into Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice", or even Hobbe's "Social Contract"

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you?...Socialism in its various forms is responsible for more than 1oo million deaths in the past century...not counting the present holocaust resulting from abortion laws...another socialist idea.... Hardly the caring philosophy you claim it to be.

As to what the difference between classical liberalism and modern conservatism...I would be delighted to live in a nation that strictly adhered to the letter of the constitution...I doubt that you could say the same as all social welfare programs would disappear in a flash. The constitution, as written is a conservative's dream...and I doubt that you could find any true conservatives who would not love to live under a tiny government following the constitution to the letter....marxists such as yourself however would hate it...ergo the idea of a "living" constitution.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

They believed in charity...not taxation at gunpoint to redistribute wealth...

Funny how you seem to know so little, yet claim to know so much.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...in-franklin-have-to-do-with-obamacare/280735/

In 1751, Pennsylvania statesman Benjamin Franklin (“the uber-Founding Father”) conspired with Philadelphia surgeon Thomas Bond to found the nation’s first public hospital, envisioning that it would provide free health care to the city’s “sick-poor” and even “diseased foreigners.” The colony’s taxpayers would foot the bill, but it would be to their benefit in the long run because making city-dwellers healthier could reduce poverty and prevent epidemics, and doctors could put experience gained in an urban hospital setting to use treating rural patients. Bond had seen the concept in action in Europe, where he had completed his medical training, and he convinced Franklin that it could work as well in Pennsylvania. Here’s how Sullivan described the negotiations that followed:

Franklin said to the Assembly, You have to build it.

The Assembly said, No, you must do it with private donations. You can't tax people in the country to pay for a city hospital.

Franklin said, That won't work, it will never be enough, good health care costs a lot of money, remembering "the distant parts of this province" in which "assistance cannot be procured, but at an expense that neither [the sick-poor] nor their townships can afford." …

The Assembly said, The people will never support it.

Franklin knew the majority of them already did. He knew the people.

He said to the Assembly, Here's the idea. If I and my associates can raise such-and-such an amount of money (an enormous sum for the time), you will match it, and the project moves forward.

The Assembly said, Sure! They knew Franklin could never get the funds. This way they looked generous, at no expense.

Franklin went out and quickly raised a good deal more even than the sum he'd named. He used the slightly competitive nature of the matching-funds plan to ratchet up giving. The people had been ready. The Assembly, to which he would soon be elected, and its powerful landed interests had been screwed. Franklin later said he never felt less guilty about an act of deception in his life."

More examples are available if you have a mind to get your head out of your ass, and look for them.

You really are oblivious to the real world aren't you?...Socialism in its various forms is responsible for more than 1oo million deaths in the past century...not counting the present holocaust resulting from abortion laws...another socialist idea.... Hardly the caring philosophy you claim it to be.

Again the fool speaks out of his ass. First off, I do not support abortions, never have, never will. However, until Dominionists like you take control we will still have a secular society, and they will determine what is legal, or illegal.

Then too, I notice how you use the term "socialism in its various forms" instead of referring to Communinism, or Nazism. Chrisitianity, in its "various forms" has killed even more then your definition of "socialism".

As to what the difference between classical liberalism and modern conservatism...I would be delighted to live in a nation that strictly adhered to the letter of the constitution...I doubt that you could say the same as all social welfare programs would disappear in a flash. The constitution, as written is a conservative's dream...and I doubt that you could find any true conservatives who would not love to live under a tiny government following the constitution to the letter....marxists such as yourself however would hate it...ergo the idea of a "living" constitution.

Actually, I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, not the perverted version "conservatives: like you support. Having already explained how the General Welfare clause was used to promote various forms of welfare, how about the Second Amendment? Explain how the Second supports an individuals right to own a gun, yet does not support the formation of a Militia over a permanent standing military which the Founders hated? The too, where is the Declaration of War at for Iraq, or even ISIS? Then too, where is is the confirmation of a Justice to replace Scalia? ALL of this is being blocked by the Party you cling to, and claims to be "conservative".

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I'm not the one making claims of mass extinction...I am saying that there is no such thing going on and as proof, I present your inability to name even 100 of the claimed 1000 to 5000 species you are claiming are going extinct every year.

Post where I said "mass extinction"? That was your perverted interpretation of what I said. However, just to show once again how blindly ignorant you are (and obviously you don't even read what you post), see if you can wrap your pitiful excuse for a mind around this from the first article you posted:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

"Only a few of the many endangered species actually make it to the official lists and obtain legal protection.

Many more species become extinct, or potentially will become extinct, without gaining public notice.

The greatest factor of concern is the rate at which species are becoming extinct within the last 150 years.

While species have evolved and become extinct on a regular basis for the last several hundred million years, the number of species becoming extinct since the Industrial Revolution has no precedent in biological history.

If this rate of extinction continues, or accelerates as now seems to be the case, the number of species becoming extinct in the next decade could number in the millions.

While most people readily relate to endangerment of large mammals or birdlife, some of the greatest ecological issues are the threats to stability of whole ecosystems if key species vanish at any level of the food chain."

Anyway, I tire of your ignorance, your baseless name calling, and just in general your head up your ass beliefs. Grow up, act like a man, and quit your childish idiocy. And for the good of the country, DON'T VOTE!!![size]

 

[palerider]

” The colony’s taxpayers would foot the bill, but it would be to their benefit in the long run because making city-dwellers healthier could reduce poverty and prevent epidemics, and doctors could put experience gained in an urban hospital setting to use treating rural patients. Bond had seen the concept in action in Europe, where he had completed his medical training, and he convinced Franklin that it could work as well in Pennsylvania. Here’s how Sullivan described the negotiations that followed:

It is a long drive from a public hospital to the welfare state we see today...

The Assembly said, No, you must do it with private donations. You can't tax people in the country to pay for a city hospital.

And the assembly followed the constitution....how about that?

Then too, I notice how you use the term "socialism in its various forms" instead of referring to Communinism, or Nazism. Chrisitianity, in its "various forms" has killed even more then your definition of "socialism".

They are all various incarnations of socialism...and Christianity is not a political philosophy and I doubt that you could find 100 million deaths as a result of it anyway...back when Christianity was in the business of killing, they were doing it one at a time...very inefficient, unlike the methods used by the various incarnations of socialism.

Actually, I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, not the perverted version "conservatives: like you support. Having already explained how the General Welfare clause was used to promote various forms of welfare, how about the Second Amendment?

Try looking up the word welfare in a dictionary that is contemporary to the time....the meanings of words change...

Today...welfare is defined as: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.

In the Websters 1828 dictionary, welfare was defined as: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

If you wonder what the term general welfare meant to the founders, refer to the federalist papers...for example, in Federalist no. 41, the author describes such items as freedom of the press, common defense, security of their liberties, trial by jury as the general welfare...much as would be expected .

In Federalist no 83, James Madison goes on thaw the general welfare clause may be abused... He states "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

The founders clearly understood the term general welfare to mean for the good of all people as is indicated by the dictionaries of the time.....and the only good for all people is freedom..and the government's proper role in their mind, and in the Constitution itself is the protection of that freedom.. The present welfare state is a deliberate corruption and rejection of the basis upon which this nation was founded...and the tragedy, and generational dependence it has fostered is exactly opposite of what the constitution calls for.

There aren't many examples of the early congress debates on what you consider to be welfare because at the time, it would have been unthinkable to transfer wealth in such a manner, but the 4th congress refused to provide relief to the citizens of Savannah Georgia after a fire burned the entire city...

He describes the very sort of government you want as a subversion of the very foundations of the limited government established by the American people...clearly you do not, nor would you care for living under a government that followed the Constitution to the letter...

Continued

 

[palerider]

Continuation

Explain how the Second supports an individuals right to own a gun, yet does not support the formation of a Militia over a permanent standing military which the Founders hated? The too, where is the Declaration of War at for Iraq, or even ISIS? Then too, where is is the confirmation of a Justice to replace Scalia? ALL of this is being blocked by the Party you cling to, and claims to be "conservative".

The second amendment grantees an individual right for a collective purpose...that does not make it a collective right. Numerous jurists appointed by founders expounded on the second amendment and what it meant in textbooks and treatises on the constitution....

St. George Tucker wrote....The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government....He went on to say...."This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

William Rawl...another jurist wrote..."The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

Justice Story wrote....."The next amendment is: "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.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In Federalist no 29...."What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped"

Federalist no 46...."Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Federalist no 28..."If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."



There is little doubt that if the founders could be resurrected today, they would immediately set about putting down the government that has arisen as a result of the corruption of their constitution and the government it created...the intrusion our government is guilty of today would make the "tyranny" of king george look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.

 

[palerider]

Post where I said "mass extinction"? That was your perverted interpretation of what I said. However, just to show once again how blindly ignorant you are (and obviously you don't even read what you post), see if you can wrap your pitiful excuse for a mind around this from the first article you posted:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

"Only a few of the many endangered species actually make it to the official lists and obtain legal protection.

Many more species become extinct, or potentially will become extinct, without gaining public notice.

The greatest factor of concern is the rate at which species are becoming extinct within the last 150 years.

While species have evolved and become extinct on a regular basis for the last several hundred million years, the number of species becoming extinct since the Industrial Revolution has no precedent in biological history.

If this rate of extinction continues, or accelerates as now seems to be the case, the number of species becoming extinct in the next decade could number in the millions.

So there is a mass extinction going on, but all of the species going extinct are undiscovered. Are you completely unable to recognize alarmist claptrap when you see it? Mass extinction of undiscovered species....what sort of idiot believes that crap?...oh...never mind...I know exactly what sort of idiot believes that sort of bullshit.

 

[palerider]

You know, this one bears repeating....

In Federalist no.83.... James Madison goes on how the general welfare clause may be abused... He states

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

So here is one of the very founders of the nation painting what you believe government should be as a worst case scenario for an out of control congress subverting, corrupting, and polluting the principles upon which this nation was founded. You are so far left that I doubt that someone like you could even conceive of the principles upon which this nation was founded...You certainly would not like living under a government that strictly followed the constitution...scratch government teachers...scratch government schools....scratch welfare checks....and so much more that the congress has foisted upon us.

The sad thing is that I bet you think you are free....hell you can't even begin to grasp what actual freedom is all about.

Once more, to the founders, what you believe government should be was a worst case scenario that was so far outside of their thinking that they could barely scratch the surface.