The second amendment ... is to protect us from the government

Actually, if you read the amendment, there is a whole clause about a militia being needed to defend a free state. As such, it was seen that it was a good idea to have the populace have access to arms in order to form a militia in response to an invading force. In other words, part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is to be ready to defend the government from outsiders. Yes, there is also some thought about the right "to protect us from the government," but I honestly wonder how realistic such an idea really is.

Take for example, the civil rights movement in the U.S. If ever there was a case for armed insurrection, this was it. An entire race of legal citizens were systematically excluded and segregated, often with the force of law and government on the side of segregation. In parts of New Orleans, black people were required *by law* to get off of a sidewalk whenever a white person was on the same side.

To counter this repression, compare the effectiveness of some of the more extreme Blank Panther groups vs. the effectiveness of the peaceful marches.

If you can come up with an example where the armed citizenry managed to achieve such things without an aiding government, please let me know. And, no, the American revolution doesn't count - it most likely would not have succeeded without the aid of the French government.

But, they *will* die.

Unlike those who stay and live for ever?

Of course, much of the US news sources are so beholden to the political New Left point of view (this is not a crime, but one must identify and understand bias where it occurs, yes?)

Funny, but I really don't see the US media as beholden to the left or right. A giant problem is that the media has been so centralized/defunded that a lot of "news" consists of puff pieces that belong in tabloids only or are simply a repetition of whatever Powers That Be have released as a statement.

See how much the media just fell in line when Bush talked about WMD and justification to invade Iraq.

The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace

Yes, yes, yes!

They want everyone ignorant and afraid, so they can sell more guns.

No, no, no. If you actually take the time to talk to NRA members, you'll find that very few (none I've met) have any such desire to turn everyone into ignorant, fearful people. Rather, they have a world view that is very different from (I'm guessing) your own.

I would suggest that as part of becoming "an educated populace," you should first and foremost stop trying to sum up the opinions and desires of those on the other side of political spectrum with simple minded statements like the above.

That is why I never use absolute statements.

Just so you know, both parties aggressively pursue the expanded police state. If anything, the Dems push the boundaries and the GOP solidifies the gains.

Strongly agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the second. You do remember that the god-awful patriot act was pushed by republicans, right?

When it comes to claiming and not releasing power, I don't see much of any difference.

The only 2 planks of the republican party I agree with are smaller government...

Since when do the republicans *actually* represent smaller government? Certainly, they do no better than democrats when it comes to total spending.

As far as I can tell, when they say "small government" all they really mean is "no regulations on business."

Your argument might have more merit if you can explain how so many people who are poor and come from nothing but the clothes on their back and manage to become wealthy. Are they all, each and every one helpless to achieve without the government providing them everything?

The argument is not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve if you come from a poor background. That argument is patently false, as you well know.

I think what the previous poster was getting at was the fact that if you take two people of equal ability and plop one down in a rich family and one down in a poor family, it is extremely likely that the person in the richer family will end going to college, finding a better job, etc. whereas the person in the poorer situation is much more likely to turn to crime as the best way of getting by.

I think that to a certain extent, a certain amount of such disparity is unavoidable, but I also think that we should, as a society, try to avoid these kinds of differences as much as possible by investing in schools, healthcare, etc. to try to give each person an equal chance at success.

How to create equal opportunities is a much larger discussion...

The "improbable cell" is a very common straw man put forth by the creationists. Certainly, you are right, there is essentially zero chance that a single cell could spring into existence from nothing, which is why no scientist worth their salt would ever make such a claim.

Instead, the first cells came about only after a lot of molecular evolution happened. This is pretty common knowledge.

If indeed AGW is such a threat, such a dire situation, then everyone should be more than willing to set aside their anti-nuke bias and ignorance and embrace it as the one way we can solve this problem.

Yes, nuclear is an option, and yes, we should explore it objectively (as if that's even possible at this point..), but it is hardly accurate to say that if you accept AGW, it follows that you must endorse nuclear or you are a horrible hypocrite.

The trouble is that there has been so much FUD around AGW that we haven't been able to even have the conversation about what we're going to do about it.

Most likely, though, there isn't going to be one solution. There will be many, depending on where you live. Geothermal energy works great in Iceland, not so much in Arizona. Arizona gets a lot of sun, though, so solar is more feasible there, but not in Seattle. Seattle could use tidal energy, though, which wouldn't then work in Wisconsin. You get the idea - tap into the resource that is nearby.

you are picking a hundred year window, and saying anyone that uses a different window is wrong.

Um. No. That is nothing like what the article is saying. The article is saying that there is a natural, periodic cooling trend that runs about every 11 years. Furthermore, this trend is sitting on top of a general *increase* in temperature.

To put it another way, think of the 11-year cooling trend as a sawtooth function. If you just sample the downhill section, it will look like a decreasing function, but over time, it is constant.

Now, take the above function and overlay a positively slopped function that has a slope less than the absolute value of the negatively sloping section of the sawtooth. The result is that you can cherry pick periods of time and still claim a decrease, but if you look at a period of time beyond the known 11-year oscillation, you see an increase.

yeah, because "I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 'reconstruction'." would mean something entirely different if it was in context.

Well, I looked at the email, and unfortunately, the rest of the email doesn't really provide much more context or an explanation of why the author of that comment dislikes that paper.

As such, we have little information, other than knowing that one scientist doesn't much like the work of another scientist. There is nothing in the criticism of this one, specific paper to indicate anything other than professional rivalry.

In fact, looking over these emails, I see evidence of frustration and a desire to convince people, but I don't see anything that indicates a widespread cover-up. As before, nothing to see here that undermines the science...

Sadly, I think we are heading towards justifiable violence as the only means to take back control of our countries and our lives. Protests and legislative bodies are accomplishing next to nothing and the situation is getting so bad, that my only choice will ultimately be violence or incarceration.

I hear your frustration, but let's give this more time. The thing about non-violent protest is that it takes a lot of time to work. Note that the African-American civil rights movement ran for 13 years.

The Arab spring and popular protests across Europe and the US haven't even hit the one year mark, but already the national (and international) dialogue is changing, as evidenced by this very thread.

Yes, there is a lot of bad shit going down, but for the first time in a while, there is reason to hope that change will come. Just be sure to take *some* kind of (non-violent) action to push that change.

They could also provide this benefit via donations to charity.

You're right. They could provide this benefit through charity, but they don't. When that changes, we can disband the government.