The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

Photobucket
Google
HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Monday, April 02, 2007

THE CONSTITUTION PART VIII - THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Amendment II - "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."

One of the most controversial amendments in the Constitution and one that the Framers deemed important enough to establish in the Bill of Rights immediately following our freedoms of religion, speech, the press and petitioning grievances against the Government as found in the first Amendment, is our right as citizens to keep and bear Arms.

One extreme misconception about this right finds its basis in the wording of the Amendment itself. The right for citizens to, "keep and bear Arms, " directly follows the right of all States to have a , " well regulated Militia." Many who are gun control advocates use this wording to express that the Framers intended the right to bear arms for the use of state Militias only and not for individuals in the protection of their families, homes or for recreational or food provision use in hunting etc.

Before I continue though I would like to clarify my thoughts on the second Amendment with this. I am not a gun owner, because I choose not to be. I am not a hunter and just have never had an interest in guns so what I write is not based on an opposition to gun control because of being a gun owner. It is based upon the reasons the Framers established the right to bear Arms for the citizens of this country and though our society has changed the fundamental reasoning for this right are just as viable today as when written into the Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was established and the Bill of Rights added this nation was young and still remembered the oppression that was posed by the British which brought about the Revolution. The first of the second Amendment which establishes a well regulated state Militia was to allow each individual state protection from any possibility of forced control by the central government to prevent any state from suffering the oppression that the British forced on the original Colonies. Also state Militias allowed for any state to protect its borders from expansion from another state or invasion from within or without. The Militias were also available to combine for a united force in protection of the nation as a whole.

While a Militia is still a right for each state the idea has become somewhat obsolete from its original intent and establishment in the fact that each state now had a state National Guard, (which has replaced the state Militia), consisting of citizen soldiers from within that state who provide both security and also aid in time of disaster for that state. Each National Guard Unit is also used as reserve in time of war for The United States military at the discretion of the Commander in Chief.

The latter portion of the second Amendment the right, "to keep and bear arms, " is often confused as referring only to Militias and not to individuals, which is not the case. Again when the Bill of Rights was established we were only slightly removed from the control of Great Britain and the taking of fundamental rights that took place in the original Colonies.

The British upon attempting to quell the growing anger and opposition to the Crown took private property, both business and homestead for billeting and confiscation as punishment. Additionally if a Colonist dared openly oppose the British they were subject to imprisonment or worse. Arms were confiscated to prevent armed rebellion and the organizing of Militia.

This and other actions by the British also brought about the establishment of the third and fourth Amendments protecting citizens from unlawful quartering by soldiers and unreasonable search and seizure.

The Framers understood that we as citizens of a free nation have the fundamental right to defend our family, our property and our livelihood from any form of illegal taking whether from invasion or a thief who intends harm. Thus the right to bear Arms was established to allow citizens individual protection.

While law enforcement is one line of defense against our homes, families and properties the Framers also understood that law enforcement could not be everywhere at once, so the right for self protection by bearing Arms is established in the Bill of Rights as our first line of personal defense.

This also requires responsibility in bearing Arms. It does not mean that every citizen will own an UZI for example which is one argument that gun control advocates use to force restrictive legislation on Arms. Whether strict gun control laws are in effect or not those of the criminal element will find guns from a myriad of illegal sources and that becomes the responsibility of law enforcement and allowing them the capability to arrest and confiscate criminal use of arms.

The misconception of the second Amendment and the right to bear Arms also has created legislation in some states that gives permission to citizens for what is already a Constitutional right. For instance the state of Texas has passed legislation allowing its citizens to use deadly force in protecting themselves at home, in their cars or workplaces as long as that citizen is not provoking the confrontation. The use of deadly force is already a right when one protects themselves as established in the right to bear Arms.

The second Amendment does not establish the right for citizens to use armed force as a means of control or oppression by force of their neighbor or anyone else. This illusion has been created by many gun control advocates to scare people and out law Arms. The second Amendment right to, " keep and bear arms, " is for the responsible use of citizens in protecting themselves if necessary and the use of arms for provision of food or in today's society the recreational sport of hunting.

Ken Taylor

44 Comments:

Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

This one is a hard one to interpret. I believe (Say today) if the Liberals had thier way (A well formed Militia), they would have already pounced the White House and Congress and taken over.

Fortunatley for the rest of us that also have the right to keep and bear arms we could prevent that from ever happening!

I guess I interpret some of that right as that. One Militia can try to overthrow the Government, and the rest of us could be a well formed Militia and keep it from happening.

On the other hand I believe the Framers also meant it was EVERY Citizens right to keep and bear arms because back then that is how we caught our food.

Also there is the right to keep and bear arms to protect our property, and our things. Which was also done back then.

I'm not sure the Framers EVER considered all this progress, and we would have a well uniformed Police force who would enforce all these laws today.

I do know one thing, you will have to pry my gun(s) from my cold, dead, fingers.

2:47 PM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

P.S.,

There is something in there about us keeping and bearing arms to prevent another Country from taking us over as well.

Maybe you covered that and I missed it, I will read it again.

2:49 PM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I did cover that when I mentioned that here, "Also state Militias allowed for any state to protect its borders from expansion from another state or invasion from within or without. The Militias were also available to combine for a united force in protection of the nation as a whole."

Thanks Marie! Though the Framers could not have fully anticipated the growth they provided for that through Amendments but it never changes the fundamental rights and laws as stated in the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN!

4:36 PM, April 02, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

"The Founding Fathers couldn't have anitcipated..." damn near anything, back at a time when the musket was the most lethal firearm around. It's not like they envisioned a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.

Come on.

BTW - what is it about the phrase "well regulated" that rightwingnuts don't understand?

5:37 PM, April 02, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

As it is written...back when slavery was legal, women were property as well, and abortion was legal, as well.

Tell us all about the Constitution "as it was written" as if we can't read it for ourselves.

5:40 PM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

This is probably the easiest of the Amendments to deal with. First, the U.S. Supreme Court has never decided that it was anything but an individual right. Secondly, ALL of the first 10 Amendments deal with individual rights. Third, a country who had only obtained its freedom through the use if individual arms only a few years before would hardly have advocated for their restriction.

6:15 PM, April 02, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Bull pucky on the SCOTUS decisions, and bull pucky on the myth of the first ten amendments referring only to individuals...there's the right of freedom of association, and the second amendment refers to the people, not the person. You are full of it Robert. What? Are you in college and you just discovered Ayn Rand?

6:55 PM, April 02, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

The right to freedom os association applies to an individual. I have the right to associate with any group I please.

Bull pucky. That is a legal argument with which I am unfamiliar.

I am not in college. I completed my Bachelors years ago and my Masters 3 years ago. I actually teach at a university in the Criminal Justice department. I wish I could see you squirm when you read this, but I teach Constitutional Law to CJ undergrads.

7:54 AM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Tom said...

Rosie O' Donnell in her infamous interview with Tom Selleck said that the Second Amendment was outdated, and was meant for militias, and yada yada yada.

Hey Ken, I really like your blog and have added your blog to my blogroll.

http://www.theconservativespectator.blogspot.com

8:52 AM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Hello, Ken. I have listed you as one of my top five Thinking Blogger Award sites. Always thought provoking and entertaining content.

On a side note I now see where mudkitty has gotten off to.

2:40 PM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Now about the topic at hand, the text of the Second Ammendment:

"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 first phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preface to the second. In other words it is the reason for the second part. Due to the fact that well regulated militias are required, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well regulated refers to the militia being well regulated, not to the right of the people to bear arms, which technically shall not be infringed. Now, infringed is a touchy word. The definition of infringe is: 1.) to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress. 2.) to encroach or trespass upon. Now if you follow that logic completely, the right to keep and bear arms should not be restricted at all.

However, I agree that the founders could not have envisioned everything and that no one needs a nuclear weaopn. Thus, a modicum of restrictions is necessary.

The left constantly claims this bill was designed to establish state militias, when every other article in the bill of rights deals with indiviual freedoms.

Furthermore, if the words, 'the people' do not refer to indiviual rights in the Second Ammendment, then they also do not refer to indiviual rights in the Fourth Ammendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," nor under any of the other Amendments using the term 'the people'. Using this logic, the only amendments in the Bill of Rights that deals with individual freedoms are the Fifth and possibly the Third Sixth under special circumstances.

You cannot seriously chamipion this foolish logic, can you? The rights of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right granted to us by the Second Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified and now ruled upon and up held as an indivual right by the Federal District Courts. If it ever makes it to the Supreme Court, they will have no choice but to uphold it as well.

3:00 PM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Concerned, Thank you for the Thinking Blog Award spotlight. It is well appreciated.

Well said in the second comment in response to Mudkitty. While I welcome all comments both conservative and liberal she ahas a tendency to not only get off subject but engage in thoughts that leave detail and logic out. We shal see how she responds to your excellent comment for her benefit.

3:58 PM, April 03, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Good grief Charlie Browns, do I have to explain everything to you guys? Do I have to explain the obvious. People, the word, is plural. Get it? Oh for god's sake, stop embarrassing yourselves. It was plural at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and it's plural now.

Militia is plural in meaning too.

And again, what is it about simple terms, like "well regulated" that you wingnuts don't understand?

I believe you know this in your heart, but are being deliberately obtuse, and perverse.

Now I suggest you go familiarize yourselves with the federalist papers, the letters between Addams and Jefferson, and I also suggest you fellas take a course, maybe two, in logic.

And both of you, I hardly need you guys to lecture me about the Constitution, which I carry around in my purse, and read from on a daily basis.

8:15 PM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Oh, my God.

So then, by your own arguments, the words 'the people' under the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," do not convey personal liberties and rights of privacy, nor personal protection against unlawful search and seizure?

Also, read the freaking words. Allow me to demonstrate.

QUOTE: And again, what is it about simple terms, like "well regulated" that you wingnuts don't understand?

I do not understand how the words well regulated apply to the rights of the people since they are directly referring to the militia itself. Again, please read:

"A well regulated Militia, (a well regulated militia, not a well regulated right of the people) being necessary to the security of a free State (ok so now we know we need a militia to maintain a free State), the right of the people (the people, not the militia, not the State. These are the same 'the people' referred to eslewher in the Bill of Rights) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (we covered the meaning of this earlier.)"

This is very plain English, without much need for interpretation.

Maybe it is you who should familiarize yourself with the Federalist Papers, such as the one where Alexander Hamilton comments on the necessity of a well armed large body of citizens to resist a Federal Army raised agianst them:

QUOTE Federalist #29:

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

This directly calls for the need of a large body of armed citizens to stand against a centralized Federal power. Do not foster the false argument that they were talking about training a standing military force to keep the government in check. That is countered in the very same paper:

QUOTE:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

They knew the best way to prevent an oppressive centralize government was to have an armed citizenry willing to defend their INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

I believe it is you who needs a course in logic. Just because you claim to carry the constitution in your purse, does not mean that you understand it worth a flip.

11:13 PM, April 03, 2007  
Blogger Gayle said...

It's a very interesting comment thread, Ken. I have no interest in arguing with MudKitty having decided it's a total waste of time and energy, although I will visit Concerned Citizen's blog as he seems to have a lot more energy than I do, and I like his commentary. :)

9:00 AM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Mike's America said...

"do I have to explain everything to you guys"

Perhaps if you knew ANYTHING about what you were talking you could. You certainly don't shy away from parading your ignorance.

Anyway Ken: Another point on firearms, but states and locales which have looser restrictions on citizens owning guns also have lower rates of attacks on the citizens by criminals. We focus too much on a "militia" and not enough on the individual RIGHT to self defense.

10:38 AM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Not to mention the jurisdictions in the country that REQUIRE homeowners to own a firearm. Kennesaw, Georgia is one of them. There was an immediate reduction in burglaries and similar property crimes. I think it was on the order of 40%.

10:41 AM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Well said Mike!

10:42 AM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Robert - I have no problem with local laws, as such... like I wrote - what is it about "well regulated" that you folks don't understand?

*****

As for CC's lame attempt to try to confuse the first and forth amendments - an old canard btw, when you're losing your 2nd amendment argument, and certainly nothing that I haven't heard before...but your unwillingness to even except the most basic meanings of English language is what's truly astonishing.

As you cut and pasted, the 4th amendment refers to people (plural) and persons (plural.) Now when you can convince me, or any thinking persons that persons means the singular, than that will be the day that the sky turns green paisley.

If you can't grasp those simple facts, you aren't even qualified to be having this discussion.

Well armed body of citizens - well regulated...an army? I have no problem with that. Still a body of citizens is a plural reference.

The Constitution deals with an oppressive central government, by having 3 branches, and not just an executive branch - something Bush himself doesn't realize.

And anyway, an armed citizens revolt against our form of government, today, wouldn't be efficient. It would be a suicide pact for anyone who thinks that their gun can resist a government swat team, much less a tank or a bomb.

You guys think like babies.

*****

Gayle has a problem debating with me, but no problem referring to me, or for that matter, disparaging me. Goes to rightwing blogging ethics.

*****

Mike didn't offer any proof of his stats, nor was his post well "said." Much less written. Fact is crime goes up in concealed carry states. Don't take my word for it, look it up - and not on world nut daily or the NRA. Try law enforcement stats...just for starters.

11:05 AM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Once agian, mudkitty misses the mark by more than a mile.

First, I never said that 'persons' or 'people' were singular, I stated that either that terminology conveys a direct individual right or it does not. It cannot convey an individual right in the Fourth Ammendment and but NOT convey and individual right in the Second Ammendment. I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that the Fourth Ammendment does not convey an individual right to privacy and protection from unlawful search and seizure.

How do you achieve a well armed body of citizens then? They are citizens, not militia or the military. How do they become well armed to resist a centralized standing army?

If you will read what I quoted from the Federalist Papers that you mentioned, you have to acknowledge that they recognized the need for the citizens to rise up in defense of their liberties, much as they had just done, against an oppressive government. The only way to ensure this ability is private ownership of arms. This is exactly what had allowed them to rebel against the oppression of the British. As Robert, suggested earlier, they would not have so soon forgotten what won them thier freedom.

As for your 'facts' about crime in concealed carry states, that is an absolutely false statement. I offer you the proof.

State of Texas - Violent Crimes per 100,000 pop.

Yr    Violent   Murder   Rape
1994   706.5   11.0   49.5
(Passing of Texas CHL early 1995)
1995   663.9   9.0   45.7
1996   644.4   7.7   43.8
1997   602.5   6.8   41.2
1998   564.6   6.8   40.0
1999   560.3   6.1   38.0
2000   545.1   5.9   37.7
2001   571.6   6.2   38.2
2002   579.7   6.0   39.1
2003   553.1   6.4   36.3
2004   540.9   6.1   37.3
2005   529.7   6.2   37.2

Texas' 2005 Cities crimes and Rates as reported in the FBI's September 2006 release of the "UCR for Metropolitan Statistical Areas"
(Statistics from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm)

So since the passing of the Texas Concealed Handgun Law, there has been a 25% overall drop in violent crimes, a 31.1% drop in the murder rate and a 24.8% drop in the number of rapes. Those are just three statistics I chose to focus on.

So either your facts are bad or you are intentionally making false unsubstantiated claims about material which you have absolutely no understanding. Which one is it?

Once again you show your ignorance about the material over which you argue. You cite statistics that are untrue and tell your opponents to familiarize themselves with documents that only serve to weaken your argument and strengthen theirs. Interesting debate tactics.

12:11 PM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Interesting Mud, that you have no problem with local laws that deal with ownership of firearms, yet believe that under the Constitution, individuals in those states have no such right. Is it your position that state's rights trump federal authority? That does not seem to be your position in Roe v. Wade,where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-abortion law as being unconsitutional.

The language is deliberate in that it conveys protections to a classification distictly separate from the structure referred to as the "state" or the "United States".

Consulting the Bureau of Justice Statistics will also demonstrate a baseline that the areas with the highest rate of persons crimes are those that either forbid the possession of weapons, or severely restrict concealed carry. New York City and Washington, D.C. come to mind.

3:35 PM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Oh yeah, it's interesting all right.

As for state laws...they set the president for federal laws do they not? A very simple concept. But - as we all know, federal law, does trump state law, in the end, and where necessary. And we all know, that the needs of rural people are different from urban people. Or haven't you folks figured that out yet?

7:32 PM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

So now you want to talk Roe, vs the 2nd amendment, much less the 4th. Typical rightwingnut bs - muddy up the waters.

And guess what CC - I never sited any particular stats. Rope a dope.

State of Texas what? I could type the same thing you did...CC. According to whom? David Whoreowitz?

7:36 PM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

"State of Texas" stats...ha ha ha ha ha ha!

7:37 PM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Well, first off you stated someting as fact that is blatently untrue.

QUOTE: "Fact is crime goes up in concealed carry states. Don't take my word for it, look it up - and not on world nut daily or the NRA. Try law enforcement stats...just for starters."

Uhm, no that is not fact. Actually it is contrary to the truth.

QUOTE: State of Texas what? I could type the same thing you did...CC. According to whom? David Whoreowitz?

QUOTE: "State of Texas" stats...ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Actually, I provided you with a direct reference to the stats that I cited, it was the FBI UCR as of Sept 2006 AND I gave you a direct hypertext link to an independent site displaying those very statistics. You are either too afraid of the truth, too incompetent or too dishonest to follow the link or do the research yourself. You would rather make off hand comments and belittle those who can support their arguments with hard facts.

Is the State of Texas not a good enough example for you? If it is not, then you need to state why? It is the perfect example of a state enacting a concealed handgun law and their crime rate being significantly lower since. You cannot simply dismiss the data because it proves your entire premise wrong.

On and the states do not set the 'presidents' for the federal laws. Presidents are elected through elections the last time I checked.

Do not bring your pathetic arguments back until you have done your homework and gotten your facts straight. You cannot fight with insults and dismissals. I challenge you before all on this site to once and for all support your rants with fact.

9:33 PM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

To throw out the phrase "state of Texas" means absolutely nothing.

10:52 PM, April 04, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

"Republic of Texas..."

Etc.

10:52 PM, April 04, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Ah, I see. You have obviously lost your argument, so now you begin to praddle on about meaningless crap.

QUOTE: "To throw out the phrase "state of Texas" means absolutely nothing."

If I knew what the hell you meant by that I might entertain you further. However, since you are obviously unwilling to accept my challenge and have so obviously failed in your argument, I will consider the discussion closed.

12:19 AM, April 05, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Actually Mud, you have it backwards. According to the Constitution, those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. So it seems as if state laws should be independent of federal laws, as they have different rights and responsibilities. Federal law only "trumps" state law when there is an overlying of interests, or when a state law is deemd unconstitutional.

Which is where the cornerstone of conservatism is laid. The federal government continually exceeds the powers granted by the people.

Mud said: "So now you want to talk Roe, vs the 2nd amendment, much less the 4th. Typical rightwingnut bs - muddy up the waters."

I am talking about a consistency of logic and legal argument. One cannot say a+b=c in one instance, and a+b=z in the next instance. You cannot say that the arguments for individual rights presented in Roe should not be applied to the very next Amendment to the Constitution. The comparisons actually clear the waters of logic, not muddy them.

Mu also said:"And guess what CC - I never sited any particular stats. Rope a dope."

Which is the point. You make assertions that are not grounded in fact, which degrades your assertions on every statement you might make. The FBI UCR, which is Uniform Crime Reports, are voluntarily reported tot he FBI each year by law enforcement agencies. The "Index" crimes are the most serious of crimes. In concealed carry states the incidente per capita of these index crimes is lower, as are other crimes such as home invasions.

FBI UCR
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

10:33 AM, April 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So CC - state of Texas...you really can't explain, what you mean by that? I would see how you would be somewhat embarrassed, but to say you don't understand what you meant by that, is pretty crazy.

12:17 PM, April 05, 2007  
Blogger Concerned Citizen said...

Ok, for the anonymous poster who can obviously read no better than mudkitty, I stated that I did not understand what she meant by the statement:

QUOTE: "To throw out the phrase "state of Texas" means absolutely nothing."

I did not throw out the phrase the State of Texas. I provided hard, documented facts related to the crime rate in that state.

I can explain precisely what I meant by the State of Texas and by the statistics provided for that state. If you are so obtuse that you need explanation of the phrase "State of Texas", then you have far greater problems than worring about me embarrassing myself.

3:15 PM, April 05, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

None of the stats you threw out, FBI, etc. are "State of Texas" stats...big silly.

10:12 AM, April 06, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Mud, what in the world are you talking about? Do you speak in person in random, incomplete sentences?

The states he gave were:

State of Texas - Violent Crimes per 100,000 pop.

12:43 PM, April 06, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

Just throwing out the name of a state, and a few numbers does not a statistic make, folks. Try again. Fools.

3:55 PM, April 07, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

You kids do realize that Statistics is a science?

3:56 PM, April 07, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

Yes Mud, and I have done graduate work in statistics and research methodology and even designed and conducted a research study in the arena of CJ.

I think I am going to stop even posting to you, because you do nothing but make up facts and are too lazy to even follow a link that someone posts for you.

Mud said: Just throwing out the name of a state, and a few numbers does not a statistic make, folks. The statistics are compiled by the Department of Justice. They are hardly "Thrown out".

You might want to go back and finish your GED before you come here again.

8:13 AM, April 08, 2007  
Anonymous mudkitty said...

What year? What study? Oh, prey tell? Robert?

11:51 AM, April 09, 2007  
Blogger Robert said...

The year was 2006, and it was a study that was used by TSA to evaluate explosive detection training for security officers.

6:01 PM, April 09, 2007  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 07.21
nike free, nike outlet, longchamp outlet, prada outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ray ban sunglasses, kate spade handbags, coach outlet, chanel handbags, tiffany jewelry, christian louboutin outlet, louboutin outlet, louboutin shoes, gucci outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike air max, michael kors outlet, replica watches, burberry, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air max, oakley sunglasses, coach factory outlet, kate spade outlet, longchamp, burberry outlet online, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors, oakley sunglasses, tiffany and co, louboutin, oakley sunglasses, prada handbags

3:52 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

coach purses, nike free, hollister pas cher, converse pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, lacoste pas cher, air force, nike air max, true religion outlet, north face, hollister, north face, tn pas cher, michael kors, true religion jeans, air max, louboutin pas cher, longchamp pas cher, mulberry, oakley pas cher, vans pas cher, ray ban pas cher, ray ban uk, michael kors, michael kors, ralph lauren uk, new balance pas cher, timberland, vanessa bruno, nike blazer, lululemon, true religion jeans, true religion jeans, hermes, nike roshe run, burberry, sac guess, air jordan pas cher, sac longchamp, hogan

3:56 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

nike free run uk, ferragamo shoes, lululemon, p90x workout, hollister, valentino shoes, nike roshe, bottega veneta, longchamp, soccer jerseys, nike huarache, wedding dresses, celine handbags, new balance, nfl jerseys, herve leger, nike air max, abercrombie and fitch, abercrombie and fitch, chi flat iron, asics running shoes, ghd, giuseppe zanotti, mont blanc, mac cosmetics, babyliss, mcm handbags, nike roshe, nike trainers, north face outlet, beats by dre, insanity workout, jimmy choo shoes, nike air max, soccer shoes, vans shoes, birkin bag, instyler, reebok shoes, north face outlet

3:58 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21

4:05 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger Minko Chen said...

michael kors outlet online, http://www.michaelkorsoutletonlinestores.us.com/
true religion jeans outlet, http://www.truereligionjeansoutlets.us.com/
beats by dre, http://www.beatsbydrdre-headphones.us.com/
chanel handbags outlet, http://www.chanelhandbags-outlet.us.com/
ray-ban sunglasses, http://www.rayban-sunglassess.us.com/
michael kors handbags, http://www.cheapmichaelkorshandbag.in.net/
michael kors outlet, http://www.michaelkorsfactoryoutlets.in.net/
michael kors wallet sale, http://www.michaelkorswallet.net/
karen millen uk, http://www.karenmillendressesoutlets.co.uk/
tiffany outlet, http://www.tiffanyjewelleryoutlets.co.uk/
michael kors handbags outlet, http://www.michaelkorshandbagsoutletstore.us.com/
chanel handbags outlet, http://www.chanelhandbagsoutlet.in.net/
ray-ban sunglasses, http://www.ray-bansunglasses.eu.com/
mlb jerseys, http://www.cheapmlbjerseys.us.com/
ugg outlet store, http://www.uggoutletstore.eu.com/
cheap ugg boots, http://www.uggbootscheap.eu.com/
oakley sunglasses, http://www.oakleysunglasseswholesale.us.com/
oakley sunglasses wholesale, http://www.wholesaleoakleysunglasses.us.com/
1017minko

11:46 PM, October 16, 2015  
Blogger chenlina said...

chenlina20151127
uggs boots
canada goose jackets
ugg outlet
louis vuitton handbags
gucci shoes
ray ban outlet store
mont blanc legend
michael kors handbags
ray ban sunglasses
louis vuitton handbags
cheap uggs
hollister co
kobe 9
adidas superstars
hollister
north face jackets
tory burch sale
ugg australia
louis vuitton handbags
timberland outlet
michael kors outlet online
canada goose jackets
louis vuitton outlet
hollister co,hollister jeans,hollister.com,hollister ca
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton purses
michael kors outlet
uggs on sale
adidas originals
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet online
giuseppe zanotti
nike roshe run women
ugg boots on sale
michaek kors outlet online
nike huarache shoes
canada goose jackets
nike trainers uk
as

9:28 PM, November 26, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.