Comments
549,921 - 549,940 of 733,160 Comments Last updated 13 min ago

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579356 Dec 29, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
My ex-wife suggested making bullets cost $5,000 apiece.
They can keep their guns, but they'd have to get a mortgage to do any serious damage.
I think it's a pretty good suggestion.
I couldn't agree more. Nothing in the second amendment that prevents it, plus the bullet manufactures would LOVE it. The extra profits could be put into a special pool and then given to the families of shooting victims...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579357 Dec 29, 2012
Dan wrote:
Your wannt to make it ilegal to teach kids about God? It's non e of youre busness.
I disagree.

There are several good arguments for why this matter is everybody's business. Here's one:

Kids need to be able to develop a natural conscience before it is poisoned by Christian doctrine, which quite clearly stunts its natural development. The Christians here are continually asking us why we don't go on killing rampages or rape people without a god belief. What does that tell you?

It tells you that they don't know what we know - the reason why, which is what an inner moral compass feels like, and how it can determine behavior.

Furthermore, it shows that the Christian doesn't care about the consequences of his actions to others, just to himself. He doesn't know why not to harm others if he won't be punished.

Do we really want to live among such people? Aren't we all at risk if they suddenly lose their faith or rebel against their god? That makes what your church does to developing children everybody's business. It means that he have a interest in seeing that the church not teach them ethics until they are mature so that they will know why not to rape and murder even in the absence of retributive torture. Does that make sense?

The same is true for the reasoning faculty, which tells us how it is out there. Christians learn to disesteem evidence, reason and critical thought, and to trust faith instead. They tend to be scientifically illiterate and to distrust scientists, which also puts the rest of us at risk, especially if the scientists are climate scientists.

We depend on our neighbors to have a 21st century understanding of our world, not the seventh century version, and to use it to make intelligent decisions. Thus, we need to educate children unimpeded by the church until a capacity for critical thought and reasonable judgment emerges, perhaps at age twenty-one, when we trust them to drink.

Then the church can have those that are interested.

Of course, the church would object, and the reason is clear: it's much harder to capture minds that can think clearly and that know right from wrong using the a bible than it is to capture the innocent and vulnerable.

Does that sound reasonable?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579358 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, but, I still learn a lot from others such as you, G_O_D, and many others actually, I may think clearer than some people, but I still don't know a lot of stuff.
Anyhow, my point wasn't to start a "which country is better," quite the opposite, it's one of my pet peeves when people compare one country or culture to another and expect them to function or even respond the same to specific changes or events. That is why I asked the rhetorical questions, not looking for an actual answer to them, just pointing out that there are differences. The entire gun thing illustrates this more than most other policies, as places in the US with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of gun related crimes, so it seems that isn't what will work in the US, it may not even be what made the rates in other countries go down either. The UK, for example, has been ahead of the US in many areas, Scotland is so far ahead in equality and freedom it's insane to know most of the US likes to ban stupid things like gay marriage "just because it's wrong."
So yes, the US is doing something wrong, but I do not see any evidence to suggest it's the actual gun laws that are a problem, so for me whether to ban them or not is entirely meh. I don't care either way, but it won't change what we see now, if people want to discuss the issue, they need to start considering what's really going on and work on that, but that's not the US mentality, the US is a finger pointing nation, and that's one of the reasons positive change rarely happens here.
you know damn well, that the problem is entitlement and religiosity.

No citizenry should allow their government to disarm them.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#579359 Dec 29, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
for you
for most people, not easy
For sane people it is not easy. ;)

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#579360 Dec 29, 2012
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
The 62 yr old man who just murdered 2 fire fighters was released from prison where he had spent something like 15 years for the murder of his 92 yr old grandmother.
If government had executed him he would not have been available to murder again. If government had kept him locked up for life he would still have been available to murder other prisoners,guards etc.
If it would be immoral of government to execute him,isn't it just as immoral for government put him in a position to kill again?
So if either decision is immoral better to choose the one that at least preserves the lives of potential new victims.
it is either wrong to kill, or right to kill, not both.

you should be incarcerated for the safety of the culture.

you are obviously someone who wishes to kill people

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579361 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but this assertion is based on ... what?
Most inmates are repeat offenders.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Most-Jail-I...

Once a rapist, always a rapist.

Many inmates spend their waking moments planning revenge against the cops, judge, lawyer and victim who they believe are responsible for their incarceration, not pondering the fact that it was their own behavior that put them in prison. Sociopaths always blame someone else for the bad stuff going on in their lives, never themselves.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579362 Dec 29, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't recall it being stated or said that if there were no firearms there would never be violence again.
In Japan one year they had only two gun casualties - for the ENTIRE year. Compare that with the - tens - of - thousands - of senseless deaths in this county each year.

I don't care if there's zero victims, I'd be VERY happy with only two a year thank you very much....

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579363 Dec 29, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
He won't get out if he is deemed as still a danger to society. I would think in his case he should die in prison, except if they can prove that he has been rehabilitated, and that can be demonstrated. The guy was obviously a bit crazy, but also one of the white supremacists, who are rabid in the USA as well - especially in the USA as your laws protect hate mongers.
The problem with the death penalty, or at least one problem, is the number of people who were in prison in both the USA and Canada for murder who were subsequently freed after DNA testing became available. Once the guy is executed, new evidence exonerating him doesn't do much for him.
The worst part of the death penalty is it is a measure of the morality of the country's people. People who kill other people have lower morals than those who don't take a life for a life. I think that it is justified when attacked to defend yourself, but never to execute someone in cold blood after months or years of trials etc. That is just cold blooded murder, and shows just how low the country actually will stoop.
Sorry but your first statement is just plain wrong. The maximum penalty for murder there is the 21 years. They can not keep him after that time. I don't know where you get the idea that they can just keep him in prison.
Can the Canadians just keep someoen in prison after they have served their term because they think he is not ready for release? I don't think so.
As to your second statement well I will put it another way. The murderer that is released and kills again. For the person that is murdered nothing does him any good.
There is only 1 sure way to ensure that a murderer never murders again and that is death.
As to your comments about white supremists that is a crock and shows you know not what you speak about.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579364 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but this assertion is based on ... what?
http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

Lots more but these are a few of them.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579365 Dec 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about conditions of incarceration. RR claimed prisons were too cozy.
Do you think we don't know that killing somebody prevents him from killing again?
You should change your name to nonsenomaly.
lol

You are so lame.

What planet did you say you passed the bar on?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579366 Dec 29, 2012
UR BS wrote:
So Called assault rifles can be used for hunting,or target shooting. So not only one use to kill people.
You wouldn't need to target shoot if you didn't have a gun, and hunting is just killing another animal, so really, the bottom line is that guns have only one purpose - to kill. If they couldn't kill there'd be no real reason to buy one.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579367 Dec 29, 2012
endtime wrote:
.
PROOF Obama's ReElection = ANTICHRIST_______
We know you're a fool, because you still use AOL. LOL

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#579368 Dec 29, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
for you
for most people, not easy
Yeah, right. Moron.

I've been choked before and it seemed a breeze for the guy doing it.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579369 Dec 29, 2012
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
The 62 yr old man who just murdered 2 fire fighters was released from prison where he had spent something like 15 years for the murder of his 92 yr old grandmother.
If government had executed him he would not have been available to murder again. If government had kept him locked up for life he would still have been available to murder other prisoners,guards etc.
If it would be immoral of government to execute him,isn't it just as immoral for government put him in a position to kill again?
So if either decision is immoral better to choose the one that at least preserves the lives of potential new victims.
There is also one other aspect to this incident that shows restricting gun ownership is not the answer.
The fact that he was a convicted felon means that he could not legally obtain a gun. So whatever guns he had he got illegally just like the criminals would if they outlawed guns.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579370 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Choking someone is fairly easy.
Only if it's your choking your chicken.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579371 Dec 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
There are several good arguments for why this matter is everybody's business. Here's one:
Kids need to be able to develop a natural conscience before it is poisoned by Christian doctrine, which quite clearly stunts its natural development. The Christians here are continually asking us why we don't go on killing rampages or rape people without a god belief. What does that tell you?
It tells you that they don't know what we know - the reason why, which is what an inner moral compass feels like, and how it can determine behavior.
Furthermore, it shows that the Christian doesn't care about the consequences of his actions to others, just to himself. He doesn't know why not to harm others if he won't be punished.
Do we really want to live among such people? Aren't we all at risk if they suddenly lose their faith or rebel against their god? That makes what your church does to developing children everybody's business. It means that he have a interest in seeing that the church not teach them ethics until they are mature so that they will know why not to rape and murder even in the absence of retributive torture. Does that make sense?
The same is true for the reasoning faculty, which tells us how it is out there. Christians learn to disesteem evidence, reason and critical thought, and to trust faith instead. They tend to be scientifically illiterate and to distrust scientists, which also puts the rest of us at risk, especially if the scientists are climate scientists.
We depend on our neighbors to have a 21st century understanding of our world, not the seventh century version, and to use it to make intelligent decisions. Thus, we need to educate children unimpeded by the church until a capacity for critical thought and reasonable judgment emerges, perhaps at age twenty-one, when we trust them to drink.
Then the church can have those that are interested.
Of course, the church would object, and the reason is clear: it's much harder to capture minds that can think clearly and that know right from wrong using the a bible than it is to capture the innocent and vulnerable.
Does that sound reasonable?
No. You are too harsh on religion.

I'd let the churches have a go at 18-year-olds.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#579372 Dec 29, 2012
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>You wouldn't need to target shoot if you didn't have a gun, and hunting is just killing another animal, so really, the bottom line is that guns have only one purpose - to kill. If they couldn't kill there'd be no real reason to buy one.
The comment was that guns had only one purpose to kill people. Not true.
As to your comment about killing animals, well duh genius! How else are we gonna eat them? Let me guess you are one of those that says us people that eat meat should buy it in the store where no animals were hurt to get it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#579373 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been choked before and it seemed a breeze for the guy doing it.
Obviously (by your own admission) they couldn't do a very good job of it because you're still here.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579374 Dec 29, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Sociopaths always blame someone else for the bad stuff going on in their lives, never themselves.
You seem to be pretty good at that.

We've heard your sob stories.

Always the victim, lashing out.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#579375 Dec 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG
OMF*ckingG
it makes me sick to my stomach when people like you show your UNAmerican side to the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 6 min Neelakaran 1,109
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 10 min Neelakaran 5,322
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min confrinting with ... 539,077
Last Word + 2 17 min Hannah V 527
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 18 min lil whispers 599,982
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 34 min Just Think 117,990
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 37 min Patrick 226,376
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 52 min Charlie Sheen 258,044
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••