Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 Read more: Chambersburg Public Opinion 11,004

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Read more
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5251 Aug 6, 2013
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5252 Aug 6, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I defend the gop?
Where did I accuse you of that?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5253 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.
The "research" by Gary Kleck has been widely discredited for years.

Here's just one, proving that Kleck's 2.5 million number is a mathematical impossibility.

----------

[I]n 34% of the times a gun was used for self-defense, the offender was allegedly committing a burglary. In other words, guns were reportedly used by defenders for self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries.

From sophisticated victimization surveys, however, we know that there were fewer than 6 million burglaries in the year of the survey and in only 22% of those cases was someone certainly at home (1.3 million burglaries).

Since only 42% of U.S. households own firearms, and since victims in two thirds of the occupied dwellings were asleep, the 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time.

----------

The gunners love Kleck.

Too bad they don't like honest statistical analysis and the facts as much.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5254 Aug 6, 2013
The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanc...
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5255 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The "research" by Gary Kleck has been widely discredited for years.
Here's just one, proving that Kleck's 2.5 million number is a mathematical impossibility.
----------
[I]n 34% of the times a gun was used for self-defense, the offender was allegedly committing a burglary. In other words, guns were reportedly used by defenders for self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries.
From sophisticated victimization surveys, however, we know that there were fewer than 6 million burglaries in the year of the survey and in only 22% of those cases was someone certainly at home (1.3 million burglaries).
Since only 42% of U.S. households own firearms, and since victims in two thirds of the occupied dwellings were asleep, the 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time.
----------
The gunners love Kleck.
Too bad they don't like honest statistical analysis and the facts as much.
Who discredited Kleck? You? HAHAHAHA

Nice opinions on statistics but where did they come from? You know your a$$ is not a source, don't you?
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5256 Aug 6, 2013
Among Kleck’s findings:

For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.

Results of Kleck’s Findings

Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.

Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying:“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/G...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5257 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Who discredited Kleck? You? HAHAHAHA
Nice opinions on statistics but where did they come from? You know your a$$ is not a source, don't you?
Ha ha. My a$$ is not a source. Funny.

Try reading a little further next time, genius.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5258 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Among Kleck’s findings:
For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
Results of Kleck’s Findings
Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.
Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying:“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/G...
Keep on believing. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5259 Aug 6, 2013
The most recent data from FBI Uniform Crime Reports found that in 2010, for every single justifiable homicide by a civilian using a firearm there were over 37 criminal firearm homicides.

Justifiable homicide:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

Murder circumstances:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5260 Aug 6, 2013
In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control, which has more complete data on gun violence than the FBI, found that gun homicide outpaced "legal intervention" with a firearm by a 32-to-1 ratio.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate1...
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5261 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha. My a$$ is not a source. Funny.
Try reading a little further next time, genius.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...
David Frum has a piece at thedailybeast.com “debunking” the idea of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually. And he bases his, ahem, argument on a 1997 study by David Hemenway. Interestingly enough, Hemenway published another article that year in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That one was titled “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” and Hemenway shared authorship (and presumably scholarship) with Drs. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. I mention the second study because in it they dissect what they call the “ridiculous” 2.5 million DGU number, explaining all the ways in which it could have been inflated, talking about false positives yadda, yadda, yadda. So it appears Hemenway has experience working with some dedicated gun rights opponents ...

It turns out that Cook and Ludwig published still another study in 1997, this one sponsored by the (Clinton) Department of Justice. The third study was titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms and also investigated DGUs. I think we can take it as a given that Cook and Ludwig avoided all of the methodological pitfalls that they complained about vis-à-vis the Kleck-Gertz study. So since 2.5 million DGUs is, according to them,“mythical,” what much more down-to-Earth, thoroughly researched and solidly substantiated number did Phil and Jens come up with?

One million, four hundred sixty thousand DGUs per year. That’s right, over 1.4 million.

So maybe that’s why Frum begins his summation with:

I wouldn’t want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers … is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials.

Well that’s mighty big of you David, but according to Hemenway’s yuck-it-up example of sampling error, 1.2 million people have been in contact with aliens, so I guess we’ve actually had almost 22% more people involved in DGUs than have been contacted by little green men.

Frum then finishes up his little screed with this gem:

But it’s rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.

Well let’s do a little math here; from 1999 through 2010 there were 669 ... no, you know what? Let’s count not just children, but anyone 18 and under for this stat. From ’99 through 2010 there were 1629 accidental firearm deaths among those 18 and younger. Which works out to 135.75/year, so we’ll round up to 136. That means you are 10,375 times more likely to be involved in a defensive gun use than to lose a child or young adult to a gun accident. Given that, how many of those DGUs saved the life of a child? Or their parents?

Who are the conscientious ones, David?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/bruc...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5262 Aug 6, 2013
Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys

Abstract

Objectives—To determine the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use by civilians in the United States, and the circumstances and probable legality of the self defense uses.

Methods—National random digit dial telephone surveys of the adult population were conducted in 1996 and 1999. The Harvard surveys appear unique among private surveys in two respects: asking (1) open ended questions about defensive gun use incidents and (2) detailed questions about both gun victimization and self defense gun use. Five criminal court judges were asked to assess whether the self reported defensive gun uses were likely to have been legal.

Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/2...
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5263 Aug 6, 2013
The Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns

What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.

This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.

You see, we’ve seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.

During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.

Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm. In fact, it’s likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.

So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn’t make the streets safer?

What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

http://www.redstate.com/stafko/2013/01/16/rea...

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#5264 Aug 6, 2013
Trying to debate any racial hating tea bag using Limbaugh's nut juice ain't going to happen, ever. These commusist lovers buy everything from the fixed news network. America does not. Keep that dream alive tea bags and demand the shut down of the federal government, alright? The tea bags get angry, no no NO more than that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5265 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
The Real Reasons Liberals Hate Guns
What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.
This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.
You see, we’ve seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.
During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.
Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.
The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm. In fact, it’s likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.
So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn’t make the streets safer?
What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.
http://www.redstate.com/stafko/2013/01/16/rea...
ROFLMAO!

You aren't a bit interested in being taken seriously, are you?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5266 Aug 6, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
David Frum has a piece at thedailybeast.com “debunking” the idea of 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually. And he bases his, ahem, argument on a 1997 study by David Hemenway. Interestingly enough, Hemenway published another article that year in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. That one was titled “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” and Hemenway shared authorship (and presumably scholarship) with Drs. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. I mention the second study because in it they dissect what they call the “ridiculous” 2.5 million DGU number, explaining all the ways in which it could have been inflated, talking about false positives yadda, yadda, yadda. So it appears Hemenway has experience working with some dedicated gun rights opponents ...
It turns out that Cook and Ludwig published still another study in 1997, this one sponsored by the (Clinton) Department of Justice. The third study was titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms and also investigated DGUs. I think we can take it as a given that Cook and Ludwig avoided all of the methodological pitfalls that they complained about vis-à-vis the Kleck-Gertz study. So since 2.5 million DGUs is, according to them,“mythical,” what much more down-to-Earth, thoroughly researched and solidly substantiated number did Phil and Jens come up with?
One million, four hundred sixty thousand DGUs per year. That’s right, over 1.4 million.
So maybe that’s why Frum begins his summation with:
I wouldn’t want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers … is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials.
Well that’s mighty big of you David, but according to Hemenway’s yuck-it-up example of sampling error, 1.2 million people have been in contact with aliens, so I guess we’ve actually had almost 22% more people involved in DGUs than have been contacted by little green men.
Frum then finishes up his little screed with this gem:
But it’s rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.
Well let’s do a little math here; from 1999 through 2010 there were 669 ... no, you know what? Let’s count not just children, but anyone 18 and under for this stat. From ’99 through 2010 there were 1629 accidental firearm deaths among those 18 and younger. Which works out to 135.75/year, so we’ll round up to 136. That means you are 10,375 times more likely to be involved in a defensive gun use than to lose a child or young adult to a gun accident. Given that, how many of those DGUs saved the life of a child? Or their parents?
Who are the conscientious ones, David?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/bruc...
I love it when the right eats its own. Frum makes a reasoned point based on empirical evidence and the gunner fringe attacks. It's just one more reason the GOP is destined to be a minority political party in the US for at least a generation.

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

#5267 Aug 6, 2013
They can easily blame President Obama for that. Everything is Obama's fault.
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5268 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!
You aren't a bit interested in being taken seriously, are you?
Why should I, you been the joke here for as long as remembered. Just following your example. HAHAHA
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5269 Aug 6, 2013
Democratic left is determined to repeal the Second Amendment. Why? The answer is simple: An armed citizenry is pivotal to a self-governing republic. Our founders enshrined gun rights not because they were bloodthirsty hicks who celebrated a culture of dueling, revenge and honor. Instead, they understood that pervasive gun ownership is a bulwark against excessive state coercive power. A self-reliant people — as opposed to one subservient to rulers — must be capable of defending themselves and their families from dangerous predators. Gun rights are essential to our system of limited government and individual liberty.

For liberals, this is precisely the problem with the Second Amendment. Their aim is to erect a Scandinavian-style social democracy — a North American Sweden. The structure standing in their way is the Constitution. This is why the progressive left has been relentlessly assaulting our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional republic. It must vilify — and discredit — our founding principles in order to pave the way for its collectivist revolution. Nothing is more quintessentially American than our gun culture. Secular leftists hate guns because they loathe America. And they will stop at nothing — including exploiting the bodies of dead children — to achieve their radical, anti-American and anti-gun agenda.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#5270 Aug 6, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your quotes don't prove shit. They show that there are some extreme liberals that would be okay banning all guns. But there isn't any possibility that's actually going to happen and the vast majority of Democrats reject that stance.
You've created a strawman to argue with since the actual position of Democrats on guns is completely moderate and reasonable.
But you said "no one". What is reasonable and who makes that choice? Funny how those who don't want the public armed are the ones calling control "reasonable". That's like all the whites saying black slaves are reasonable.

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.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 12 min Valerie 30,982
News Cruz is aiming at the wrong Republicans 24 min radiofreeamerica 1
News Indiana backlash: What you need to know 43 min American1 149
News Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty will help neit... 1 hr red and right 4
News Speaking of "stuck in neutral", Ted (Oct '10) 1 hr MPP done nothing ... 3
News Why Islam cannot change 2 hr Dawn of reality 5
News Genital Warts Treatments (May '07) 2 hr HIV- Goodlife Cainta 187
More from around the web