Відео

Impossible to take anyone seriously who denies that Israel has always blockaded Gaza. This person is a well-regarded analyst? No wonder Israel's days as a Zionist ethno-state are numbered because they live in the fantasy world of the colonist settler without the freedom to wipe off the map anyone who opposes their fantasy project. They're 100 years too late.

Okay for journalists like Josh Sugarmann to invent the term assault weapon, knowingly to mislead the public, all the while being a licensed FFL Dealer. It is amazing the extent taken to track down this professor, gather information as an investigative journalist’ in order to present the possibility the research is biased. The Constitution is not biased “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”. You all can try to obfuscate the meaning of of the 2nd Amendment with false interpretations, but the 2nd Amendment is very clear.

When the dumb and poor countries pump out babies like there's no tomorrow. But the advanced ones are stopped having babies!

Look if Donald Trump wants to be a megachurch pastor or a wrestling promoter, fine. But i don’t care for his type of jokes in the context of the most powerful position of the most powerful country in the world. It’s irresponsible.

Its this lack of intellectual dishonesty that makes you really look like clowns... 🤡

No blockade? Why dig tunnels if everything can come in by truck? People with great rhetorical skill often get away with lies.

Who cares about a survey, shall not be infringed. Why do people want to keep giving up more and more ground to the government? Stop making yourself subjects, keep your freedom.

There's too much I *can* follow to always know what I should be following. I would never describe myself as someone that knows a lot about politics, I constantly forget who represents my district, what types of powers the city counsel members have and have large gaps about all kinds of government offices and their functions. I'm pretty bad at understanding geopolitics in a broad sense and while I do dedicate a regular portion of my time bouncing between passively and actively consuming politics from a handful of sources, I always feel pretty lost at sea in all this information. I live in southern California, barely make above minimum wage and have a pretty high stress life that makes it super difficult to know what I should know or even keep track of what I think is important. That all said, one of the things I'm pretty sure of is if you let people vote on policies directly without having to go through a politician the pandemic checks would be back and I think that says a lot about what's really important to most of us.

I know that Trump was convicted on 34 charges, but I don't know what 33 of them were. I'm pretty sure that no one else here knows either. I know a lot of people who care about his conviction. There is no way in h"ll that they are not voting for Trump now.

Wow what a bunch of twits... tell me you don't know the meaning of inalienable right without telling me you don't know the meaning of inalienable right... 🤡🤡🤡

Wales got an ALPHA BETH.....wow! Clap clap clap for Beth and ElisaBeth! Ahahahahaha

Not enough people are aware of Project 2025. If they knew, or believed it was a real thing (and not just a left wing conspiracy theory - oh, how I wish it was), they'd definitely not be voting for trump or for any republican.

I don’t believe Trump is winning at anything.

The copium is strong here.

A thaw in the freeze on federal funding for gun violence and injury prevention research The CDC and NIH have awarded grants for firearms research for the first time in more than 20 years By Kirsten Weir Date created: April 1, 2021 9 min read Vol. 52 No. 3 Interestingly the funding for this research was linked. Gun violence research is difficult to fund and lobbying to have federal grants difficult to obtain is lucrative.

As one who follows 2A case s very closely I can assure all readers that the amicus brief in question plays a very very insignificant role. The supreme Court has laid out specific tests that go back to the national firearms act of 1932. Plainly put, there is no there there.

I fear that it’s intentional that a lot of disengage with politics.

What makes you think you can come uo with a conclusion that will prevent you from having to use force on gun owners to reach your goals?

Intelligent voters are voting down ballot, both candidates are trash!🤔

I live in AZ, I’ve read the bill, lines 3 and 4 make it clear abortion up till birth. How? It allows for abortion beyond 24 weeks if you have a health issue -- this is completely arbitrary, subjective, and misleading. A health issue is defined by the one carrying the baby

Simple. Give people a better democrat. Then trump disappears. But Ezra won’t do that. Then he becomes irrelevant.

I stopped at "I finally decided just to visit his house..."

NYT just let's them spew out a bunch of lies and misleading statements without challenging ANY of it

If only every study was examined this thoroughly.

I must say that it particularly upsetting to hear commentary on guns, gun rights, the 2nd Amendment, self-defense, the rights of self protection, etc., from people that have never even owned a gun, never fired one, never had to use one/couldn’t if they had to, think that self protection means keeping a golf club or baseball bat behind their bedroom door or a sharp stick in their car, doesn’t realize that the need for self protection isn’t something you can schedule and when seconds count, the cops are always minutes away and that the sheep only survive (that’s you) upon the good nature or indifference of the wolves you unknowing walk amongst everyday. You Are Complete and utter dilettantes.

You know that your opposition is exaggerating/falsifying the amount of legitimate factual support for their argument when they can only cite a single study...and the study's author refuses to discuss the work/funding that went into creating the it. There is no way we can reasonably trust Dr. English's study...it's not peer reviewed...it's not an area of study that the author has any previous domaine expertise in...the funding for the study clearly came from a highly biased Pro-2A group...he refuses to discuss anything about the study with reputable journalists.

Where does the times get its funding?

Roof top Koreans

I consider myself a victim of the 401ķ system, as well as other changes to income taxes such as the abolition of income averaging for individuals! I worked under the 401ķ system pretty much from the beginning of my career. I was not a financially educated person, neither was anyone in my social circle. I knew I had to retire someday... at every possible opportunity I signed up for the max contribution. HOWEVER every 10 or so years the US had a financial crisis which impacted me. I was layed off, often for many months was unable to find employment. And although everyone talks about ' the market' going up...the fact is that most investment funds chosen by employers are NOT 'the market' and CAN and DO loose value... The upshot for me was 2008, when I my late 50's I was layer off and it took me years to get another job... I did need to take money out of my 401k to live on, AND I borrowed against the equity in my house (which was my back up investment for retirement, I thought)! So, due to no wrong doing on my part - other than needing to spend money to help close family members in crisis - I was forced at one point to sell my house... Long story, I had to 'retire early' and was financially punished for that. I depend on Social Security 100% and now live outside the US....

They don’t talk about the flaws in the decision; they try to straw man a researcher as to why the scotus decided bruen. What naked propaganda. No one believes these clown smears.

one anaology is,...just because slavery was protected by law, upheld by the courts, and even upheld by the supreme court, still, it was NEVER constitutional to enslave another human being. It was simply wrong, and it was wrong the entire time. Gun control may well have been made into law, but it is never going to be constitutional to deprive a citizen of their natural born rights. So it will always be wrong, and now litigation is correcting the ship to back to a solid course towards liberty.

The advocates for the rights enshrined in the 2 amendment will never respect laws and INFRINGEMENTS made by people that know NOTHING about guns, self-defense or act completely out of ignorance, fear or loathing. It doesn’t matter how popular a “standard capacity magazine is” (the ignorant call them “high”), when 3 guys are kicking in your door, all the sudden, no magazine is big enough. Also, these limits only empower the criminals… Rights do not end where the fear of sheep begin.

The blue bubble is so ignorant about fire arms.

His study is as reliable as any pushed by moms demand action, giffords, or any other anti gun rights group. The stats around use of guns for self defense are also likely more reliable than the cdc and fbi data because of how often defensive uses of firearms that don’t rise to actual shooting don’t get reported, and are thus not captured by the government’s data.

the other problem with gun control is that it hasn't been around that long. the nation is almost 250 years old. there was no gun control whatsoever in any real manner until the civil war ended, and that was targeted specifically at freed slaves, to keep freed slaves from protecting themselves. general gun control didnt pop up till 1911 in NYC, then 1934 at any national level

Strengthening Gun Rights? There is no strengthening…they are what they are. Anyone that has ever read the Federalist Papers knows exactly what the founders meant when writing the 2 amendment and what it means when they said, “shall not be infringed”.

the use is,...use for all lawful purposes.

My small town paper gets more views than NYTs

After all the innuendo and hand wringing, this is what stands out: 1. There is absolutely no evidence that the study is incorrect in even the most minor detail. 2. There is no reference to any scholarship demonstrating conclusions contrary to Dr. English's findings. Do you imagine that Bloomberg and other deep pocket anti-gun advocates haven't tried to find it . . . and failed because it doesn't exist. 3. Somehow the fact that an anti-gun group pressured the CDC to take down a study on it's website that largely accords with the English research was not unearthed by this reporter. Doesn't that make one doubtful about the motives and competence of this reporter, and the NYT generally?

Do they mention capitalism even once? Now gonna listen to the garbage. You guys can update me

Being President of the United States or a member of Congress is simply an honorary position. Corporate America owns this country from top to bottom. There's not a single law passed that isn't written for and by Big Business and Wall Street. America is neither a Republic or a Democracy, it is a Corporation. This woman makes a living giving us her opinion even though her opinion has no more value than anyone elses who has access to the internet.

BS attack of the credibility of the author by the liberal leftists asshat journalist..

Apparently the life of the woman carrying the fetus is irrelevant. Of course if she dies, so does the fetus. If the fetus has catastrophic birth defects, who bears the cost of its care? If the government forces the pregnancy to be carried to term, it must be willing bear the cost of the baby's care after birth. All this being said, I resent a people forcing their religious views on the rest of us. You cannot force belief.

Why Trump won’t be elected again.. He made himself an enemy of the powerful and affluent citizens of Silicon Valley. Because these techies are living the American Capitalist dream. ( making huge amounts of money from virtually nothing ) They must offload their guilt somehow… so they can outwardly look virtuous. Trump is such an obvious ‘easy-win’. You can’t lose by being righteously disgusted with him. So the masters of technology will converge to do all they can to stop him. And look smug, knowing they did their good deed for the society, they are relentlessly fleecing. He made himself an enemy of the entirety of Western Europe. He toyed with the idea of disbanding NATO. Which he would’ve probably opened up as.... purely fiscal extortion racket. You pay twenty percent GDP each and I’ll give you some protection. No money, no protection. Therefore every European leader or their vast internal bureaucracy want him to fail. They prefer the US military as a ‘democrat’ world police force - rather than a bunch of street gangsters. He made an enemy of the CIA and FBI - and that’s all you really need to say about that. For a society that’s desperate for virtual signalling points… he loses most of the young, most of the educated and those fence-sitters who don’t want to feel ashamed for voting for, someone so maligned and ridiculed. The zeitgeist is all about virtual singling and overt sincerity, not outlandish displays of wealth, opulence or insincerity. Finally… those really in control of the US, do not want him back. It was a mistake ...and that error will not be repeated. They believed he was the same as all of the others. A clown figure who would come and go without any real fuss. Like all of the others. They won’t be allowing that obvious ‘omission’ to be allowed back into office. He was too much of a clown and showed up the US governmental edifice, for what it truly was. An ornamental veil to hide its true administrators.

Rachel Abrams and Mike McEntire hate America and want stricter gun control. They claim single-shot rifles are enough for self-defense, this is a deceptive attempt to steal our rights.

Does the 2nd stand on it's own simplest nature? What does this have to do with anything????

If you'd like to see really good presentation on the science of it by someone who's been studying this for decades now, do a search on "Tipping risk of the Atlantic Ocean's overturning circulation" that was just put out a week or so ago by Stefan Rahmstorf.

Question? If I want to defend myself... What's the best way?

"HOW COMEN".... Do you use your phone for self defense?

“Mhmm” lol