Hottest Take Ever: Beauty Magazine Explains How To Implement An Almost Total Ban On Private Ownership Of Firearms

Everyone goes to Harper’s Bazaar, a magazine primarily about fashion, beauty, celebrity, culture, and food and travel, for diatribes about gun bans, right? But, remember, no one is advocating taking away your guns

How We Can Stop Mass Shootings in America
Australia’s national gun buyback and gun registry worked. It can work for us, too.

We don’t have to live this way.

There is a lot we can do in society to discourage violent outbursts. Encouraging young men to be comfortable expressing emotions rather than turning their anger into murderous violence would be a great start. But in the meantime, because that’s going to take a while, let’s take away the guns.

Yeah, I know, you want a gun to kill a bear. Fine. Let’s take away the vast majority of the guns. Because we’re going to keep having mass shootings in America until we do something about America’s gun problem. And we can, because other countries have. As the Onion regularly—too regularly—has to point out, we are the only country where this regularly happens.

(a few rebuttals to common 2nd Amendment supporter arguments)

There are going to be fans of the second amendment who respond to that by saying, “Well, the right to bear arms wasn’t in the constitution in other countries.” Yeah, the constitution includes what’s commonly referred to as an Elastic Clause. It’s Article 1, Section 8 and it grants congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” It’s commonly understood that the founders included that clause because they could not accurately anticipate the needs of the populace, say, 250 years in the future. Given that the constitution is intended to provide people with “domestic tranquility”— which no one can experience when our schools, our movie theaters, our concert halls and our yoga studios are places where we might have to contend with a mass shooter—it would be a pretty great time to make use of that elastic clause.

This is perhaps the hottest of hot takes on the 2nd Amendment I’ve ever read. I usually reserve red for my own interjections, but, bold red works for this one, which has to be taken in whole. As grandma says

Excitable Jennifer Wright has zero clue how the Constitution works in relation to the Bill Of Rights. By her definition, the Congress could simply pass a law that restricted free speech, due process, oh, hey, freedom of the press, all for “domestic tranquility” and such. Do I really need several paragraphs to explain how utterly insane her reasoning is? That it’s false? What are they teaching in schools? How do people get these wackadoodle ideas?

But good news. You don’t have to ban all guns entirely. You just have to put laws into place to make sure that they are hard to get, and safely handled. (snip through a discussion of the Port Author shooting in Australia, which led to their forced confiscation and bannings)

After Port Arthur, Australia did make certain guns illegal. They prohibited the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and made it illegal to import those weapons.

Yes, she is recommending the Australian solution, which would be forced confiscation with some compensation (you can’t buy back my gun, because the government didn’t sell it too me) and a ban on most private ownership of firearms. Then, when each 2nd Amendment supporter is left with owning tons of 6 shooters, speed loaders and bolt action rifles (except for the criminals, who kept their semi auto and auto weapons), they will have to be registered. But, you’ll only be allowed to carry them when hunting, so, open and concealed carry will be verboten.

Good luck with this. First, you’ll have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Her idiocy on the “Elastic Clause” won’t work.

Second, good luck getting the hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms from their owners.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

64 Responses to “Hottest Take Ever: Beauty Magazine Explains How To Implement An Almost Total Ban On Private Ownership Of Firearms”

  1. Jethro says:

    She’s so naïve.

    In 2012, the mentally deranged son of a gun-nut mom, stole her firearms, murdered her and then proceeded to Sandy Hook Elementary school where he gunned down 6 adults and twenty 6 and 7 year old kids, who were huddled terrified in their classrooms.

    America did nothing. America did nothing then to prevent these attacks, and they’ve just become more frequent since. Dems blame guns, GOPhers blame Dems. Americans die. If a nation can’t be bothered by 20 murdered grade-schoolers, they can’t be bothered. We’re losing our national soul and tRump hopes to finish the job.

    This is the new normal in America. It’s no longer safe to go to the grocery store, school, church, mall, theater, work, concert, mosque, park, hospital or restaurant.

    Dead children is the price we pay for our freedoms. Get used to it.

    The NRA argues that good guys with AR-15s are all that can stop bad guys with AR-15s, but they rarely do. Nations without AR-15s find it unnecessary to stop bad guys with AR-15s.

    • formwiz says:

      Good little Commie that he is, Jeffery can’t help letting the cat out of the bag.

      Dead children is the price we pay for our freedoms. Get used to it.

      Give up your freedoms and government will make you safe. After all, unarmed people are much easier to herd into cattle cars, right?

      Make it easier to commit people to asylums and a lot of this stops. Allow OCW and it all stops (94% effective rate on CCW and OCW stopping these looneys).

      And, Teach, you can toss our little snowflake out.

      • Jethro says:

        Whatsamatter Uncle Whiz? Tired of getting beat up and need your daddy?

        Anyway, I’m on your side! The right supports killing innocents in exchange for playing “army”. Fair enough. Have fun. Let me know when you next halt a mass murder with your pretend machine gun.

        Since almost all mass shootings are committed by white conservative men, is that where we should start our commitments to asylums?

        Would you mandate that everyone carry a gun at all times to make us all safer?

        • Jl says:

          Since most shootings, period, and hence homicides, are committed by black men, is that where we should start our commitments to asylums? Might as well start where most of the killing is done.

    • dachs_dude says:

      Jethro — you said it here: “In 2012, the mentally deranged son of a gun-nut mom, stole her firearms,”

      She bought the fire arms because she was afraid of her son, who no one would commit to an institution despite her pleas. The government did nothing in this situation.

      Do you all see the pattern? Time after time, the government refuses to intervene and do the right thing and then a mass shooting happens. It’s almost, almost like the government WANTS these shootings to happen so that people will BEG to have their rights taken away.

      The government REALLY wants us disarmed.

      I wonder what they’ve got planned that they don’t want us to be able to fight back?

      Forced socialism? Forced communism? Forced confiscation of assets, business and wealth to pay off our National Debt???

    • Hoss says:

      I love when the party of snuffing babies uses children as political props.

  2. The Neon Madman says:

    Every time I think that I have heard it all, something new comes along and proves me wrong. An “Elastic Clause” ?

    Do people really get paid for writing this kind of idiocy?

    • Jethro says:

      The Necessary and Proper clause. sometimes called the “elastic clause” is real.

      The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      It’s not that complicated: Congress has the power to make laws and the Supreme Court has the power to decide if the laws conflict with the Constitution. The American president can sign EOs that the courts examine. It’s all this checks and balances that tyrants hate.

      Could Congress ban semi-automatic firearms? Of course, but reviewable by the courts.

      If the GOP (who else) passed a law taking the vote away from women (or reinstituting slavery), and a Repub prez signed it, it’s likely the SC would declare it unconstitutional, don’t you think?

      But relax, in America we’re more likely to re-institute Black slavery than to ban firearms.

      • Kye says:

        “It’s not that complicated” to the simple minded. The Elastic Clause does permit Congress to make laws “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States… The Bill of Rights however, are NOT powers vested BY the Constitution In the government, they are Rights Owned by the People, derived from God and specifically DENIED adjudication by the Power of Government. IOW, the Elastic Clause has to do with Laws not Rights.

        Learn your Constitution and learn your history.

        • Jethro says:

          Do you have evidence of a god that wrote our Constitution? There’s more evidence supporting global warming than supporting the existence of gods.

          The Amendments are not part of the Constitution? That’s news.

          For all your bluster please note that the SC rules on the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech is not absolute, the right to own firearms is not absolute etc. What constitutes an ‘unreasonable search or seizure’? ‘cruel and unusual punishments’? Do you support your tax dollars paying lawyers for criminals? What constitutes a ‘speedy’ trial? Is the 5th Amendment militia the same as the 2nd Amendment militia – if so, can you define it?

          Is it your contention that the first 10 Amendments are immutable? Can they be repealed? Can they be interpreted by the Supreme Court?

          1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          2. 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.

          3. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

          4. 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.

          5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

          6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

          7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

          8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

          9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

          • Kye says:

            Putting words in other people’s mouths, are we Jethro? Exactly where did I say God wrote the Constitution? Quote me. What I stated was that the Bill of Rights are just that:Rights, not laws and they have their justification from God, not man. I assume if you don’t believe in God then you must also not believe in “unalienable Rights”, those that cannot be taken away by government or any other power. Therefore, you must not believe in Human Rights which are those naggy Unalienable ones too.

            Plus, in the same breath you move the goal posts. If there is global warming or cooling God created it, not man. We just don’t have that kind of power.

            Again on the subject of putting words in my mouth exactly where did I say The Amendments were not part of the Constitution? Show me. I’m beginning to understand how leftists have become so ignorant. Either they don’t listen or fail to comprehend what people write if they “feel” they don’t agree with it.

            For “all my bluster” as you call it, I do know that the SC rules on The Amendments. Surprise! Their job is to make sure no laws are passed or abridge the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It can be a daunting job with millions of leftists and their lawyer assassins constantly trying to destroy the Natural Laws of Man either because they don’t believe in them (because they don’t believe in God) or because they stand in the way of the subjugation of Free Men to despotic rule.

          • alanstorm says:

            The Amendments are not part of the Constitution? That’s news.

            That’s not what he said or what he meant, Jeffty.

            I know liberals have trouble reading, but keep trying.

          • formwiz says:

            As a matter of fact, we do (My God, I love it when he’s this ignorant).

            The people who wrote the Constitution were deeply religious white, heterosexual, cisgender men and often spoke of God guiding their efforts.

          • Jethro says:

            You guys think human inalienable rights derive from an imaginary deity?

            Is it possible that human experience has taught over the millenia that certain behaviors are necessary for safe, orderly and just societies?

            Or is human cooperation an evolutionary trait?


          • david7134 says:

            In watching your comments it is beyond obvious that you don’t understand abstract thought and that you are just commenting to get people upset. Then it is obvious that your educational background is very poor,probably as a consequence of confining yourself to pharmacy school.

  3. bob sykes says:

    Actually, her argument would allow Congress and the President to amend any clause in the Constitution by simple majority vote. Congress could even reestablish slavery for blacks and take the vote away from women.

    • formwiz says:

      Take the vote away from women?

      It would almost be worth it.

    • Jethro says:

      formwiz says:
      November 22, 2018 at 10:11 am
      Take the vote away from women?
      It would almost be worth it.

      Hoss says:
      November 22, 2018 at 11:27 pm

      We wish you were joking. The right wants only white Christian men to vote, the way God intended, right?

      We do understand why you are so frightened though. Your way of life seems threatened. White men had the privilege of treating others however they wished without repercussion. Now it’s almost as if women and minorities have equal rights to white men. White conservative men are all for equality, it’s just they want to more equal than others. While being white is still and advantage in the US, it’s not the advantage it used to be. You will have to adjust or perish.

  4. Jl says:

    Another liberal who flunked 8th grade civics class but yet writes for a major magazine…”the elastic clause”-maybe she was talking about women’s stretch pants..

    • Jethro says:

      Unlike most Cons, who imagine what is in our Constitution, many writers have actually read it.

      Most of what Cons imagine to be true, is not. Sad.

      • Hoss says:

        Many writers…using the appeal to authority with himself as the authority on what writers have read. It’s cute when the left starts talking about that “living, breathing” document that is the Constitution.

      • Kye says:

        Were you trying to steal: “It’s not so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t true” from Ronald Reagan, Jethro?

        • Jethro says:

          Sorry, but we rarely listened to Mr. Reagan. Our observations on the NuRight are based on our observations of the NuRight.

          • formwiz says:

            Jeffery and his little voices never need to listen. As Darwin noted, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”.

      • formwiz says:

        How would you know?

        Most of your schooling on the Constitution has come from me.

      • formwiz says:

        Actually, he’s closer to the truth.

        And Jeffery is just spouting off. He has yet to read any part of the Constitution. He just copies where his masters tell him.

  5. Jl says:

    Good- have your friends read the elastic clause and get back to us..

  6. Okie 1585 says:

    The bill of rights lists those things what the government cannot do. One thing it cannot do is create through law unalienable rights for itself. Especially the right to take away those of living souls. Common law does not list these rights because “ALL” belong to men and women. Oh and don’t go down the rabbit hole of “vestites”. If you bleed monthly and produce eggs you are a woman. Do you have a twig and berries ………your a man. Everything else is a mental health issue between your ears and heart.

  7. joe says:

    jethro…the moron on beverly hillbillies…

    first, read this

    then come back and explain again how you plan on taking away from us what the founders of this country gave us to protect ourselves from the government, our fellow man, and any other shithead that wants to take what we earned with hard work…once you finish that, put down the unicorn and we can talk

    • Jethro says:

      Thanks for the advice.

      Do you seriously think your AR-15s will stop the US military if/when someone like Trump orders them into your city?? Wolverines!! You may die resisting, but you’ll die.

      The more effective approach may be to stop charlatans like Trump in the first place.

      • formwiz says:

        Trump won’t do it, but Swalwell would. And nuke us in the bargain. But it’s nice to hear you tell us what your big wet dream is about Democrat control (you stop off after being kicked out of the house for some Wild Turkey?).

        You may die resisting, but you’ll die.

        Tell it to King George.

        And the charlatan was your Mocha Messiah.

      • joe says:

        your bias is strong pink pussy hat wearing libtard…people like you don’t understand PDJT or what he believes in…it’s people you pray to, obama, beto, clinton…those are the ones that would use the military against it’s own citizens…

  8. Mangoldielocks says:

    Because we’re going to keep having mass shootings in America until we do something about America’s gun problem.

    Amazing how the left wants to take away weapons. Why is that?

    The condone violence. It just has to be targeted violence. Antifa is just fine with them. Assaulting conservatives is just fine with them. Boycotting Christian businesses because they obey their conscience is okay with them.

    George Soros is in a big bruhaha with Zuckerberg over facebook wanting to investigate Soros. Why? Because Zuckerberg is realizing what and evil bastard Soros is. How he is funding ANARCHY all over the world. The man is pure EVIl in every sense of the way. And now hes demanding the government investigate Facebook for INVESTIGATING HIM.

    People are fleeing facebook and TBH is anyone has an account with facebook your insane. Why would you want to give Facebook all your personal information? They are just data miners who sell you information for money. Facebook is one ginormous scan perpetrated on the world that made one man obscenely wealthy. Instagram where everyone is fleeing is the same thing. Yeah flee Facebook AFTER they already got all your information and give it to us so now there is TWO companies selling your personal information.

    Even using a VPN is not helpful. The only thing a VPN does is prevent honest people from finding out who you are. Crooks, thieves and governments can penetrate VPNS so fast its not even funny. Most servers are Linux, and guess what. Linus is open source meaning the software is written by the CIA, Mossaud, Russia, China etc.

    Do not think a VPN protects you from the governments of this world or those who seriously want your stuff. It does not.

    The absolute intrusion into our lives by BILLIONAIRES, GLOBALISTS and Governments is mind boggling and now they have funded the drive to take away your weapons and make you defenseless against a facist world.

    Yeah the left has some brilliant ideas. I just cant think of one any more since they have been taken over by the far, far left Antifa, George Soros open borders lunatics and whats left of the democratic party all are corporatists. Awesome.

  9. alanstorm says:

    There is a lot we can do in society to discourage violent outbursts.

    Yes, and as virtually all recent shootings show, society is too scared of…something or other to put these people in mental institutions where they will be no harm to themselves or others.

    • Jethro says:

      How do you determine in advance who to put in the asylum?

      If a man buys 55 semi-automatic weapons in a year? (Las Vegas).

      If a woman with semi-auto weapons has a mentally unstable son? (Sandy Hook)

      If a man flies a Gadsden flag outside his home? (St. Louis)

      If a man spews anti-Soros, anti-Semitic, anti-globalist online (Pittsburgh)

      How do you know whom to lock up?

      • formwiz says:

        How about the ones who are already acting violently or in bizarre fashion?

        And flying a Gadsden flag does not mark him insane.

        However, somebody who parrots only Left wing talking points, who insists that he is right when clearly proven wrong on such simple matters as the Scientific Method, who has an irrational hate for politicians of the opposite party, who adheres to an economic system that murdered 125 people in the last century, IOW you, would be a prime candidate.

  10. formwiz says:

    You guys think human inalienable rights derive from an imaginary deity?

    The Deity is a lot more real than you phony climate change and your imaginary science by consensus.

    Is it possible that human experience has taught over the millenia that certain behaviors are necessary for safe, orderly and just societies?

    Obviously not, since morons like you keep pushing socialism and government control.

    PS 2 n’s in millennia, from the Latin words for thousand and year.

    Or is human cooperation an evolutionary trait?

    Neanderthals were banding together when the rest of the human race was still at your stunted development.

    • david7134 says:

      When I was in college in the 60’s, the idiots at that time was say stupid things about religion to make them seem smart. If you notice Jeff only post to try and appear smart.

      • formwiz says:

        I know. The more insecure some people are, the more they try to appear sophisticated.

        They think disbelief makes them look smarter when all it does is make them look superficial because they have no real belief, even if it’s not believing in religion.

  11. Jethro says:

    The Deity (sic) is a lot more real than you (sic) phony climate change

    Prove it! Or maybe just support it.

    You believe in spirits but not physics? If other people say they hear voices, they’re considered crazy, but the religion brag about it – their spirits talk to them!

    PS – Since there are thousands of potential ‘deities’ it does not require capitalization and ‘your’ has an ‘r’. If you think your deity is the only one, you’re in good company, since most religious people today and over all of human existence thought or think the same thing.

    Trump’s government released the 4th Annual Climate Report today, and it’s not very optimistic. Does trump need fire all the scientists and disband the agencies?

    • formwiz says:

      We’ve been waiting God knows how long for you to prove all the global warming nonsense is real and not just a plot (which you call consensus) to impose government which would tell us how to live every aspect of our lives.

      God created physics, nimrod. He created everything, which explains Dalton’s Law that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

      Which religion brags about it? One of your more amusing traits is you will start firing off generalizations when you can’t come up with a real answer (as in most of the time). If someone is inspired, is that a divine voice? Could be.

      PS We’re not talking about potential ‘deities’, so it does require capitalization. You must have gone to one of the worst schools in St Lou. I would capitalize Vishnu, if I were a Hindu, that’s just the elements of style. Proper names are capitalized.

      Lord, you are ignorant.

      Trump’s government released the 4th Annual Climate Report today, and it’s not very optimistic. Does trump need fire all the scientists and disband the agencies?

      No, some of Zippy’s moles introduced some nonsense. And, if Trump did disband the agencies, it would be a good step toward balancing the budget.

      • Jethro says:

        Scientific theories are not proven, but as scientific evidence accumulates in support of the theory, it comes to be accepted by the scientific community – or a consensus forms. That’s where the theory of man-made global warming is now. That’s not to say that a skeptic, a modern day Copernicus, will never invalidate the theory, only that it’s gets less likely with each supportive study.

        We understand that conspiracy minded NuCons believe that global warming is a plot by communists, scientists, bureaucrats, Obama deep staters, the CIA, the FBI, and the courts to force hard-working white NuCons to give all their money to lazy Negroes, Mexicans and gamma boys.

        No. Getting rid of all the scientific agencies will not be a good step toward balancing the budget. It would be a tiny step. The GOP is adding more to interest on the debt than all science agencies combined. NuCons want NIH, CDC, EPA, NSF, NOAA gone because they don’t like the scientific evidence they generate.

        You worship Deity. Got it. My apologies.

        • formwiz says:

          Christ, you are ignorant.

          A scientific theory must be proven to be accepted.

          If you’d ever gotten past first grade, you’d know one of the things scientists are taught is how to construct a proof. If you can’t prove it, it is worthless.

          “Consensus” is nothing more than snowing the mob.

          Hitler, after years of building consensus, got the German people to try exterminating Jews.

          • Jethro says:

            You’re mistaken. Scientific theories are not proven.

            From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory”. It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

            The US National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

            The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).

            ‘Proved’ or ‘proven’ is not mentioned. Neither are Jews, Hitler or extermination.

        • david7134 says:

          you have already been schooled about consensus. Continued use of that thought process just shows you abysmal stupidity.

          • Jethro says:


            Let’s try a different tack.

            Can you name the ‘proofs’ of a few scientific theories?

            Atomic theory?
            Germ theory of disease?
            Big bang?
            Biological evolution?

            And we’ve asked this dozens of times with no answer. What proof do you need to see to be convinced that the theory of man-made global warming is reasonable and likely true?

          • david7134 says:

            My God man! Are you really that stupid? You’ve arebeginnig to sound like Occasional Cortex. But rather than trying to school youI will ask on question? Of your items listed which one results in high taxes and destruction of my country?

    • Eabod says:

      Dumb nig

  12. formwiz says:

    Can you name the ‘proofs’ of a few scientific theories?

    Atomic theory?
    Germ theory of disease?
    Big bang?
    Biological evolution?

    You asked for it, as Art Baker used to say (In the immortal words of TE Lawrence, “This is going to be fun”).

    First atomic theory is now fact, thanks to electron microscopes, but you want it, Dalton’s Proof.

    Ditto the germ theory, but here’s Louie’s Proof.

    Big Bang is still a theory, as is the aggregated dust idea.

    Evolution’s proof is in Charlie’s book. Evolution, of course, has taken a few hits since Charlie conceded he didn’t have all the answers and hoped research would come up with them.

    So far, it’s not looking too good.

    If you’re looking for specific names, most scientific proofs don’t have them, even relativity, which is fun anyway since a lot of 4.0 high schoolers have found the hole in it (I went to school with a guy like that).

  13. Jethro says:

    Your ‘Dalton’s Proof’ is no such thing. You were closer with TEM, AFM etc, where the patterns generated correlate with the predicted structures. We agree that atomic theory is accepted as fact, based on the consensus of scientists.

    Darwin didn’t prove evolution, but the subsequent incredible finds in biology, biochemistry and molecular biology have provided evidence supporting the theory. Evolution is accepted as fact based on the consensus of scientists.

    You may be on to something with germ theory of disease. One would be an idiot to think that viruses, parasites, prions and bacteria don’t cause communicable diseases and that vaccines don’t work. Certainly the scientific consensus is that communicable diseases result from ‘germs’.

    But few theories are as simple and elegant as specific germs causing specific diseases.

    What is gravity? Why do objects fall to Earth?

    • formwiz says:

      It’s not my proof, it’s what the world of science has accepted for better than 200 years as the original proof that atoms are the building blocks of matter. You got a problem? Take it up with the World of Science.

      And Darwin’s book did back up his theory with his observations. That’s a proof. That’s how you do it. Empirical evidence, not consensus.

      Ignorant doesn’t even begin to deal with the depth of your abysmal concept of how science works.

      When Charlie said Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge, he was certainly thinking of you.

      One would be an idiot to think that viruses, parasites, prions and bacteria don’t cause communicable diseases and that vaccines don’t work.

      A lot of very intelligent people wanted more proof. You take what is established and assume it’s obvious. There was a time microscopes and other means of discovery and observation weren’t adequate.

  14. formwiz says:

    You’re mistaken. Scientific theories are not proven.

    They have to be if they are to be taken seriously. How do you think people convince scientists they’re on to something if not by proof?

    Then again the American Association for the Advancement of Science has come under fire for harassing scientists who didn’t see things their way. Along with The US National Academy of Sciences, both turn out to be shills for the global warming nuts. So, of course, they support the kind of drivel, if not initiate it, that Jeffery is stupid enough to believe is the way science works.

    Go back to 4th grade (if, in fact, you ever got that far) and take a couple of science courses.

Pirate's Cove