How do we protect kids in school?

How do we protect kids in school?

There are 6103 comments on the Ruidoso News story from Jan 8, 2013, titled How do we protect kids in school?. In it, Ruidoso News reports that:

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4009 Jun 15, 2013
Czech Mate wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG ANSWER,!
Spend more time on one alias, Shug.

You aren't clever enough to carry more.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4010 Jun 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Geez dude, you really missed the point like four or five times
Affirmative defense: burden of proof is on the defense.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4011 Jun 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
No one said that Judeo-Christian ethics and laws were the ONLY thing the constitution and our laws are based on.
Right.

Some some of our laws are based on commonalities in the bible, such as "thou shall not murder"... which is also in every other religion on the planet.

And most aren't.

So what?

PS: The same ethics are in the Qur'an.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4012 Jun 15, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
OK.
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that 'retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.' However,'not subject to retaliation' is 'a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring.'('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
This was taken from a website called Atlas Shrugs on a story about a 16 year old girl who was buried alive in an honor killing for talking to boys.
That is not Islamic law.

However, while we're discussing such things, I have a question regarding keeping the Sabbath, number 4 in The Ten Commandments, on which some say our constitution is based:

I have a neighbor who routinely works on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4013 Jun 15, 2013
The authors of the constitution were very careful to leave god out of the document for a reason. They wanted FREEDOM to worship as or if they chose and wanted no more of a state religion from which they had freed themselves.

If you read The Ten Commandments, you will see that establishing laws based upon 1, 2, and 3 clearly would violate the first amendment.

As has been noted, 6,8,&9 are the only ones on which our laws might be based, but then, all religions say murder, theft and perjury are illegal and punishable.

Coveting? Lusting? Hardly law worthy.
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You miss the point completely. A wise man once said; "If God had not created man, man would have found it necessary to create God". The very laws we live by are based on the Judeo-Christian religion, the Ten Commandments, and those truths which we hold to be self-evident. God is in the courtroom every time any of our laws are properly administered whether you recognize that fact or not for without God or the belief that there is a supreme order those laws would not exist. I will not argue the existence of God with you, if you're an unbeliever that's your personal choice and you have every right to make it. But if you try to deny the fact that our country is based on the laws of God, be He real or imagined, you are sadly misinformed.
BTW, God gave man FREE WILL.(Another truth we hold to be self-evident) Those who blame God for the evil perpetrated by men are the insecure people looking for an explanation. 9/11 was not an act of God; it was an act of men. This is, after all, the kingdom of men and the purpose of religion is to promote moral behavior and open a path to the Kingdom of God for those who choose to follow it.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#4014 Jun 15, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>My name is not Dude.
They were white man's laws written for popular Christian memberships who were land owners and male .
I have never missed the point,
Okay. What does that have to do with the FACT that the laws, rights, and freedoms that they incorporated in the constitution being based on Judeo-Christian ethics and laws? How many Muslims were among the founders? How many Native Americans were among the founders? How many Asians were among the Founders? They were all white Anglo-Saxon protestants. Is it any wonder they were a bit ethnocentric? However they were intelligent and honorable men who thought for the future. For instance, they identified the fact that "all men are created equal" as being "self evident". They were 100% correct but it took another 90 years and a civil war before slavery was ended. What was done to the Native Americans was a crime of monumental proportions. The basic ideals that the founders set forth were and still are nearly perfect. It is the fact that people aren't perfect that creates the problems. The founders didn't live the ideals they set forth 100% and no one has since but the ideals are still 100% correct. They didn't live the ideals completely and we aren't living them completely because they were and we are IMPERFECT. Every American should strive to live those ideals as completely as possible but being human we will falter. As we move into the future it is hoped that we can also move closer to adhering to those ideals completely. Why? Because based on Judeo-Christian ethics, belief in a supreme order, English common law, Greek politics, Roman military structure, and a sincere desire for justice, liberty, and truth the Constitution of the United States of America is the most prolific proclamation and protector of individual freedom in the history of mankind. It transcends our petty prejudices, hatreds, and imperfections and sets a benchmark for all men to strive for. If you can't see that my friend you need to step back, clear the cob webs, wipe your eyes, and take another look.

Where is your America, you ask? It's right there in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. All we need to do is learn to truly embrace those ideals as a people and a nation. That's not an easy thing to do though, is it? Freedom is not free and the only rights you truly have are the ones you're willing to die for because there will always be imperfect people. It's part of the human condition.

Now, I'm going to climb down from my red, white, and blue soap box and consider this a wrap. If we cannot agree on this then there little hope of agreeing on anything else. Hope you have a fine week end and a happy father's day.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#4015 Jun 15, 2013
x-and-o wrote:
The authors of the constitution were very careful to leave god out of the document for a reason. They wanted FREEDOM to worship as or if they chose and wanted no more of a state religion from which they had freed themselves.
If you read The Ten Commandments, you will see that establishing laws based upon 1, 2, and 3 clearly would violate the first amendment.
As has been noted, 6,8,&9 are the only ones on which our laws might be based, but then, all religions say murder, theft and perjury are illegal and punishable.
Coveting? Lusting? Hardly law worthy.
<quoted text>
I said that our laws and freedoms were "based" on Judeo-Christian ethics. No one said they took from Ten Commandments verbatim. They borrowed from other sources as well in their effort to create as perfect a society as possible. They did an outstanding job IMHO.
Wondering

United States

#4016 Jun 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You just did. I don't need to.
Try again

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#4017 Jun 15, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>Try again
Tell ya what, hold your breath waiting for me to try again. No really, start now. Okay?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4018 Jun 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Okay. What does that have to do with the FACT that the laws, rights, and freedoms that they incorporated
You rolling around on the floor stomping your feet decalring something wrong is a fact, Sissy, especially given your history of rolling around on the floor kicking your feet insisting your line of [email protected] is a fact long after it's be refuted, complete with sources,

E.G.: that the burden of proof in an affirmative defense is on the accused posted dozens of times while you insisted it wasn't so.

You are in the affirmative defense position, you limp-wristed fairy: you have been established of being full of cr#p so the burden of proof- naturally- goes on you.

Maybe you should pick out one thing and prove it true, something you have posted, just one thing.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#4019 Jun 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I said that our laws and freedoms were "based" on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Crap, all crap I tell you. But then, all you write is crap.
Most of the leading Founding Fathers rejected both Judaism and Christianity, the Bible, and organized religion, and held either deist views or else their own personal forms of theism. Further, our constitution was partially based on common law of the day. Mostly our constitution was based on the philosophies of prominent political FFs.

I doubt you even know the meaning of "Judeo-Christian ethics".

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#4020 Jun 15, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Crap, all crap I tell you. But then, all you write is crap.
Most of the leading Founding Fathers rejected both Judaism and Christianity, the Bible, and organized religion, and held either deist views or else their own personal forms of theism. Further, our constitution was partially based on common law of the day. Mostly our constitution was based on the philosophies of prominent political FFs.
I doubt you even know the meaning of "Judeo-Christian ethics".
He has now completed the circle of retreat.

Had he been left unchallenged he would still be saying our American rights were god given but he found an unfriendly audience so like any good politician he continually refined his words until praise for the document itself was his main point .

We should elect him President.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4022 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to change your mind and insist the burden of proof in a affirmative defense is on the prosecution, let me know.
Interesting.

Do you even read what you write?
Do you even understand what you write?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4023 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW: Free phones- started with Reagen, you smarmy NAZI fascist.
That is incorrect.
Here's why:
There is no such thing as a free phone.
<smile>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4024 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
" by a preponderance of the evidence,
What does ^that^ mean?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4025 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party."
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)
that is more convincing (even if minimally)

even if minimally

even if minimally
even if minimally

even if minimally

even if minimally

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4026 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
is not the son of Gods according to Jews and isn't a even prophet.
So then, is He an uneven prophet?
What is the difference between an even prophet and an uneven prophet?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4027 Jun 16, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Crap, all crap I tell you. But then, all you write is crap.
Most of the leading Founding Fathers rejected both Judaism and Christianity, the Bible, and organized religion, and held either deist views or else their own personal forms of theism. Further, our constitution was partially based on common law of the day. Mostly our constitution was based on the philosophies of prominent political FFs.
I doubt you even know the meaning of "Judeo-Christian ethics".
Is there any difference between:

"... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ..."

and:

"... that they are born with certain inalienable rights ..."

Does not the true meaning and intent of the phrase still remain constant in either wording?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4028 Jun 16, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>He has now completed the circle of retreat.
Had he been left unchallenged he would still be saying our American rights were god given but he found an unfriendly audience so like any good politician he continually refined his words until praise for the document itself was his main point .
We should elect him President.
Were you born with certain inalienable rights already a part of you?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4029 Jun 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You brought it up, Dongliqueur.
Ask the crackwhore you are married to.
Uh...no I didn't, fuckstain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blanco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teen faces murder charge (May '10) Sep 5 Daughter of Ben 95
News Ousted Navajo Head Start leader alleges harassment Sep 3 User 2
SJC Fair Aug 27 Biker 5
A New Motorcycle Club running aroung?? (Jan '10) Aug 23 Riley 25
Sunny Aug 23 Kidd Rockk 1
News DMV experience a painful one (Oct '10) Aug '17 Blinded by the ugly 86
Redburn tires Aug '17 Faker 2

Blanco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Blanco Mortgages