While lower intelligence scores — as reflected by low results on written or oral tests of IQ — have been associated with a raised risk of cardiovascular disease, no study has so far compared the relative strength of this association with other established risk factors such as obesity, smoking and high blood pressure.
Now, a large study funded by Britain’s Medical Research Council, which set out to gauge the relative importance of IQ alongside other risk factors, has found that lower intelligence scores were associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease and total mortality at a greater level of magnitude than found with any other risk factor except smoking…
When the data were applied to a statistical model to quantify the associations of nine risk factors with cardiovascular mortality, results showed that the most important was cigarette smoking, followed by low IQ. Similar results were apparent when the health outcome was total mortality.
I wonder if the addition of firearms worship could predict the eventual Darwinian disappearance of right-wing nutballs?
Obama must be in danger of cardiovascular disease then, especially if he wants Navy corpsemen instead of Navy corps men to work on him.
SURVIVAL is a relative term…
If you are RICH, you may be considered Smart, but you also have better Health care.
Eideard…the Chris Matthews of Dvorak.org/blog.
Whatta bonehead!
From: Obamaforever
To: Bengie (aka Benjamin)
per #41
Stepped in what???????????
I think all that gun smoke has gone to your brain!!!!!!!!!!
PS Bengie and Toto, why don’t you two little doggies sniff each others butts!!!!
#22 – One of the few times I agree with you. Since the4re’s no political aspect to the article, what was Eideard’s point in adding in the picture and his comments?
Seems like a very blatant ploy to drive hit count.
#5 — the crap hits the fan — the crap hasn’t hit the fan since 1812. Take deep breaths, relax. No one is going to invade the US anytime in the next century or two.
#11 Tito — freedom of speech has no correlation with gun ownership. Didn’t you see yesterday’s DU? the one about Freedom of the Press? Lots of gun-happy states with little freedom. Lots of gun-free states with total freedom.
#25 — “animals better equipped to defend themselves survived to breed” — that worked well for T. Rex, the most well equipped animal ever, eh?
maybe fighting isn’t such a good survival technique.
#37 — most astute
Perhaps the most valuable thing I learned in college was “correlation does not mean causation.”
LOW IQ is correlated with poverty.
POVERTY is correlated with poor diet.
POOR DIET is correlated with cardiovascular desease.
#34 If you were to study natural law, which is what the rights in the constitution are base on then you would know whether it’s a right or not. Then you could answer that you either agree with the underlying principles or that you don’t.
#45 But if that’s true I wonder if he neglected to read Johns rules for driving hit count; he forgot to include the word porn.
I totally defend the right to keep a weapon _IF YOU ARE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA_.
If you are not in a well-regulated militia, you don’t have weapons rights. (But the government may grant you weapons privileges.)
…”I wonder if the addition of firearms worship could predict the eventual Darwinian disappearance of right-wing nutballs? …”
I wonder if the unnatural fear of other people’s beliefs could predict the eventual Darwinian disappearance of panty-waist faggots?
#53, Good thing that isn’t how the amendment is written.
And note . . . if the government gives you something, it is not a right. It is a privilege.
“I wonder if the addition of firearms worship could predict the eventual Darwinian disappearance of right-wing nutballs?”
I think it was Jefferson who said that those who beat their guns into plowshares will end up working for those that don’t.
I doubt if he expected them to be paid well for doing it if they got paid at all other than being allowed to live.
You might try reading what Charlton Heston has written about gun rights, which was always reasonable.
He was a great man, and Democrats shouldn’t hold it against him that he hated apes in the movie Planet of the Apes.
>> LibertyLover said, on February 11th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
>> #53, Good thing that isn’t how the amendment is written.
Well, that’s easy enough to settle. Here is the exact text:
“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.”
While the grammar is bad by modern standards, the writers explicitly linked gun rights being in a militia.
OBVIOUSLY, If they had intended totally unrestricted gun rights, they would simply have said, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But they didn’t say that because that is not what they meant — they meant that the right to bear arms was for the purpose of being in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Otherwise, there was no reason or need to mention militias. C’mon man. this is just common sense.
Furthermore, you can’t be in some jackass militia. It has to be a _well regulated_ militia. Again, they would not have gone out of their way to mention “well regulated” if they had just meant any goofball with an Walmart cammo jacket.
>> And note . . . if the government gives you something, it is not a right. It is a privilege.
That’s what I said… the government may give you gun privileges even if you are not in a well regulated militia.
After winning freedom from England because of armed hunters along with the militias the founding fathers wanted individuals to be well armed not only to defend against foreign invaders but their own government. They never wanted government to oppress the people and armed people are harder to oppress than unarmed ones TAKE SOME TIME TO READ HISTORY OR YOU WILL REPEAT IT.
The Second Amendment:
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 original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.