It's interesting that the government is going after rifles first. Pistols are the weapon of choice for criminals, who find their smallness advantageous for concealment, surprise and maneuverability. Pistols are more suited to the close-up work that a robber does, and for that reason they're also better for defense against robbers. Rifles, on the other hand, are more suited for fighting soldiers, since they are precise over long distances, giving a sniper a chance to shoot and scoot. By demonizing rifles, the government signals its intention to become such that citizens might have good reason to shoot at its troops, that it plans to become tyranny, a dictatorship, of the very kind the 2nd Amendment was written to empower citizens to resist.

Short, red-headed going gray, rated marksman with small arms in US Air Force field training. I've always had a knack with pistols. Precision seems to come naturally to me. I can shoot through the neck of an old-fashioned Coca-Cola bottle at 50 feet, one hand, double action, about 8 times out of 10. There are better shots with a .357 than me, but not many. But in a gun fight, I would want more bullets than the six in my revolver. Unlike mounted paper targets, enemies will jump around. They'll separate and cause distractions. They'll hide behind cover in order to snipe. To win a fight against several aggressors, even a good marksman might need to shoot many times.

The argument against police in schools does have merit. Mass murderers are a rarity, and most of the time the police officers on school patrol would not be doing anything in support of their primary purpose for being there. The taxpayers would, nonetheless, be burdened with the costs of paying those officers through their taxes. Also, cops with time on their hands usually find ways of making jackasses out of themselves. They might seek to "justify" their roles by becoming officiously picky-picky, throwing their official weight around. A much better plan: arm the teachers. Teachers are already trained to teach, tend, and otherwise deal with children and teenagers. And no extra tax money will be needed.

The Flynn effect is a gain in IQ resulting from improved nutrition among poor people. It is one of the few instances in which the environmentalists have been right about non-genetic influences on mental ability. The effect isn't one that goes far into prehistory—we note that Thomas Jefferson wasn't retarded and that Euclid was hardly a vegetable. Nor will it continue to increase IQ scores in the future. All (or nearly all) of the gains in IQ that can be made from improving nutrition have been made already. As black IQs rose from 1945 to 1995, so did the IQs of whites. The environmental factors that bring up one race also bring up the other. The significant thing is that the gap remained between them during all of those fifty years.

Quote: "As it turned out, the research showed that the average IQ difference between black and white Americans -- 15 points -- was nothing unusual. Similar IQ differences could be found between various culturally isolated white communities and the general society, both in the United States and in Britain." The variation of IQ within races is also genetic and is a result of assortative mating. Continued long enough, it might fission a race, so that there would eventually be two races spawned from a common ancestral race. The only cultural effect you see here is the one that reinforces assortative mating with acquired preference and learned avoidance. Poverty didn't "dumb down" the duller whites any more than it did with most of the blacks.

"Swastika Girl" at George Washington University turned out to be Jewish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=097pUEo09LI "Swastika Man" in New York City turned out to be Jewish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjheg7TZFM Just because you found a racial insult written somewhere does not mean that you know anything about who left it there. False flag propaganda and false flag crimes are very common.