Derek 2.0

So? Americans have a right to be armed. How is that different than the Occupy movement which occupied public land/parks? No, they have stated they will defend themselves if violence is used against them........that is legal in the United States. Has anyone been killed or injured? Has private or public property been damaged? Have Businesses been unable to open or the public unable to go to work and school etc? Who is/has been interrupted, let alone injured, by this protest? This protest is no different than Black civil rights protests from the 1960s........

Sure, why wouldn't it be considered peaceful? As I've said, I stand to be corrected, not a single act of violence has taken place, so why would it mater if they were armed or not? Americans have an enshrined right to bear arms and peaceful protest. From the CBC: It would seem this "Occupying" of a Wildlife refuge isn't having an impact on the locals, in addition to being non-violent. The one march they held in a local town: Contrasted with the Occupy movement or the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore..........

I would say so........from the information in the media, not a single act of violence has occurred during this protest over a court ruling........notice the contrast between this and the previous riots in Ferguson or Baltimore. Why? Are said protesters disrupting the public? Are they disallowing the public from using the National Park?

The same speed at which they liberated the parks taken by the Occupy movement........ Are the "brown skins" using violence or partaking in a peaceful protest?

Sure, I provided a source, that includes it's sources of data........you claim said data is "nonsensical", so either you'll have no problem in supporting your claim or your suggestion is baseless.

Social Darwinism........the Castle Doctrine has been a dictum of legal systems based on English law since the 1600s. What if said 14 year jumped a fence into said yard and was attacked by a dog?

My point exactly, and refutes the suggestions that legal concealed (or open) carry will result in shoot outs in the streets etc........As demonstrated in Texas, CHL holders have a lower rate of criminal activity than the general public.

Can you refute them with evidence?

By that logic, all police should wear plain clothes and carry concealed..........what, after all, is the benefit of them not? Huh? Strike the idea of plain clothes officers, it would never work. Maybe, but again, by that logic, all police should wear plain clothes/open carry well on duty to prevent them from becoming a primary target? Really simple question......if you were fixing to rob a corner store somewhere in Wichita Falls (The Surrey of Dallas), would you target the store where you know the clerk is armed, made evident by the Big Iron on his hip, or the store where you think the clerk in unarmed (Still playing roulette in a State that embraces concealed carry)?

It's a good thing than that Texan CHL holders are less likely to be convicted of a crime when contrasted with the general public writ large. But I agree, those guilty of gun violence should have the book thrown at them. One interesting point, within the current US legal framework, is the FBI's NICS program. What would be interesting, and perhaps an angle that should further be enforced, is those that apply for a background check and are rejected due to a felony record. If near ~60% of those near 1 million people rejected are due to a criminal record and conditions placed upon them on their release, and they (should) know this, how many instances does the FBI or law enforcement follow up with these people and lay charges?

Per this source, that provides the sources for their data: Furthermore: And one more point worth noting, based on the recent conversations here over police shootings: Take that as you will, but if somebody skeptical even cut the suggested data by 2/3rds, that would still land in the favor of legal protection with a firearm versus criminal firearm violence in the United States.

Canada already has the legal framework per the Canadian Firearms Act.....the stark contrast is the rate of issuance of course.

Sure, and since its private property, its no different then a person uncomfortable with firearms "banning" guns in his or hers home.......ain't personal Freedom grande?

Do you have any data to support that opinion? ~44 of 50 States already have open carry of handguns, I stand to be corrected, but I highly doubt rates of gun violence in Texas will be altered one iota by open carry of handguns.

Why wouldn't they? CHL permit holders in Texas are far less likely to be convicted, of any crime, than the "general public". Why do you expect gun deaths rates to be altered by handgun open carry? Before the legal change, Texas was one of the few States/Districts that banned open carry of handguns (California, New York, DC and Illinois are only remaining IIRC ones). And of course, the only reason Texas ever had such a law, post Reconstruction, was to curtail the ownership of firearms (and large knives) by minorities. (see former slaves and Mexicans). Texas States laws are now aligned with those of Washington State, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine and Oregon etc....

Of course I will.........for example, have the Italians opted for another "cheaper" type (over the F-35) to meet their aircraft requirements?

Why would I do that? Due to the then lowered cost, contrasted between the Spring 2014 appropriations and the Fall 2014 contract signing, the DoD was able to purchase additional aircraft. I know, I said that numerous times.......LRIP 9 was signed little over a month ago, and LRIP 10 is expected to be signed in the coming weeks. Sure I do, I provided several links (One from the USNI) with the dollar amount for the 11 additional F-35s and the breakdown of the versions being purchased.........simple grade school math applied and: $295 million/ 3 F-35As = ?

Good, you've moved forward to Fall of 2014 and LRIP 8.......now just another 13 months to get to LRIP 10 and the present day

You can laugh all you like Waldo, said appropriations doc was released, months prior to LRIP 8 being signed......LRIP 8 the contract that also included the provisions to produce the first F-35s for the Norwegians and Italians.........since that time: Now get in your garbage fueled Delorean and join us in the present day

I don't ignore, more of dismiss, since by the time said reports are tabled, and the anti-f-35 crowd blogs about them, they are dated........the program isn't in stasis........ Like your above mention of the 2015 FY appropriations, as confirmed by the Waldo math's breakdown of the then planned purchase........the problem, LRIP 8 was signed nearly 6 months later, at a reduced cost, for more aircraft........

The ones underpinned on international orders post 2016?

Of course, since you're stuck on LRIP 6/7 pricing, since fiscal year 2015 appropriations were initially requested in the Spring of 2014......nearly two years ago and four production contracts ago.

Clearly, in the context of her then remarks, the line being underpinned to International orders post 2016, absent said orders, wouldn't be producing planes.

Why would she bring up 2016 or the requirement of International orders to continue production through to 2019?

Sure, because once its in full production it will be even cheaper. IOC is months away, and as cited earlier, the first USAF squadron will go into the pool of combat capable aircraft.........