Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146629 Jan 2, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>They banned here, I think owning one jail time no questions asked.
Exactly.

Why no outcry about that from gun nuts?

Because even the staunchest gun owner knows that the silencer is designed to make it easier to get away with killing people.

But these same people can't admit that the assault weapon is designed to kill people.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#146630 Jan 2, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
While that is true, I do believe that most politicians get too comfortable in their positions and their lobbyist know just what price they require to vote a certain way.
My problem is, I have tried to read a bill or two and it is damn near impossible for a layman to understand what they are talking about. If you have ever looked into who actually signed out a bill to read it? How many in congress don't even do that? They just vote along party lines or by what they hear.
"Got to pass the bill to find out what is in it."
Now who said that?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#146631 Jan 2, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't agree. Barring debilitating health problems, people don't get stupid as they age, they get smarter, more competent. While some politicians may lose touch and get stuck in the past, most keep up to date on matters that require government action or attention. In addition, living through decades of changing times makes for a greater degree of perspective than is found even among younger students of history. Older pols who are mired in the past need to go, but some who served to their last breath have been driving forces with their eyes on a future that even their younger colleagues see with less clarity. Edward Kennedy and Tip O'Neil come to mind and I should imagine they had Republican counterparts.
Beware of the temptation to get rid of leaders for inconsequential reasons as their replacements are likely to be inconsequential as well.
I'm 19. I know the difference between income and expenditures. Edward Kennedy killed a young girl. Nuff said.

This is simple economics. We are taught this at an early age. How do the older politicians forget these lessons?

I think Strom Thurmond was elected to the United States Senate when he was 98 years old. I could be wrong about that because I'm rarely wrong. Let's talk about Robert Byrd. Shall we?
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#146632 Jan 2, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
While that is true, I do believe that most politicians get too comfortable in their positions and their lobbyist know just what price they require to vote a certain way.
My problem is, I have tried to read a bill or two and it is damn near impossible for a layman to understand what they are talking about. If you have ever looked into who actually signed out a bill to read it? How many in congress don't even do that? They just vote along party lines or by what they hear.
Congress is corrupted, as most of Congress spend 99% OF TIME WOOING Corporations ... and little people are kicked aside!

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#146633 Jan 2, 2013
Quibbling over design specifications is pointless. The reason to own and bear arms is for hunting and protection. Unlike knives, which are primarily for use in the kitchen and some workplaces, or cars, which are for getting around, guns function only as weapons. If they were tools, as some claim, they would be stored along with screwdrivers and hammers. When we plunk away at targets, we are preparing to kill if necessary. And sometimes--rarely--it is.

But mostly it is not. A review of U.S. homicide statistics shows that very few are justifiable under the law. Most of the time that guns are used against people, they are used illegally even when the guns themselves are legal. At the same time, most guns are never used against people at all because most gun owners are careful and responsible about them.

It's also true that in the vast majority of gun fatalities, there is only one victim. The mass shootings that so alarm us happen rarely, but the single victim shootings that take the vast majority of homicide victims happen daily. To be so alarmed at the one and not at the other makes no sense at all.

Is it possible to identify demographic groups or individual people who are most likely to use firearms illegally? I don't know. I doubt that predictions can be accurate enough to justify denying a right that is available to all other citizens.

What does make sense to me is to designate a legal purpose for each class of weapons, designating some for general use and others for police or military use only. Private citizens have no legitimate need for rocket launchers, but they do for hunting rifles. Somewhere in between, a line needs to be drawn, but where? It's a question that only the legislature and the Court can answer.
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#146634 Jan 2, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm 19. I know the difference between income and expenditures. Edward Kennedy killed a young girl. Nuff said.
This is simple economics. We are taught this at an early age. How do the older politicians forget these lessons?
I think Strom Thurmond was elected to the United States Senate when he was 98 years old. I could be wrong about that because I'm rarely wrong. Let's talk about Robert Byrd. Shall we?
Hey we youngster have stick together . You are smart!

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#146635 Jan 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
...Because even the staunchest gun owner knows that the silencer is designed to make it easier to get away with killing people.
....
Yet they , like full auto weapons, arelegal to own in most of the USA.

When was the last time you heard of a full auto or silenced weapon used in a crime ? Please provide proof <court transcripts>

All the anti-gun nuts are clueless and usually liars.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#146636 Jan 2, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Somewhere in between, a line needs to be drawn, but where? It's a question that only the legislature and the Court can answer.
I think the best answer would be to adopt similar laws to other countries where the problems of gun crime are less. But I cant see that happening, cause the love affair with guns is so strong.

As a point of interest, I was reading a US Christian forum, where the majority was very strongly in favour of assult weapons. I find it interesting that the two go together, a Bible in one hand, and an assult weapon in the other.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146637 Jan 2, 2013
NRA mentalist La Pierre (AKA freedom gun?) pulled up your media for saying 5.56mm rounds (NATO standard) were the most powerful for the reasons you explain.

It's only a technicality. They still do far more damage than knives.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know assault weapons are designed to wound rather than kill?
Of course that doesn't mean they aren't effective at killing .
So here look into it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/30/1174...
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#146638 Jan 2, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Quibbling over design specifications is pointless. The reason to own and bear arms is for hunting and protection. Unlike knives, which are primarily for use in the kitchen and some workplaces, or cars, which are for getting around, guns function only as weapons. If they were tools, as some claim, they would be stored along with screwdrivers and hammers. When we plunk away at targets, we are preparing to kill if necessary. And sometimes--rarely--it is.
But mostly it is not. A review of U.S. homicide statistics shows that very few are justifiable under the law. Most of the time that guns are used against people, they are used illegally even when the guns themselves are legal. At the same time, most guns are never used against people at all because most gun owners are careful and responsible about them.
It's also true that in the vast majority of gun fatalities, there is only one victim. The mass shootings that so alarm us happen rarely, but the single victim shootings that take the vast majority of homicide victims happen daily. To be so alarmed at the one and not at the other makes no sense at all.
Is it possible to identify demographic groups or individual people who are most likely to use firearms illegally? I don't know. I doubt that predictions can be accurate enough to justify denying a right that is available to all other citizens.
What does make sense to me is to designate a legal purpose for each class of weapons, designating some for general use and others for police or military use only. Private citizens have no legitimate need for rocket launchers, but they do for hunting rifles. Somewhere in between, a line needs to be drawn, but where? It's a question that only the legislature and the Court can answer.
Myers-Briggs Profiling, Scientology or even bether do a DSMIV , PyschoAnalytical profiling for Psychometric deviant profile is worth it! Forgot name of Study upto 3%(or more) of the Populations with Type A personality are Pyscopaths/Sociopaths--- made up most Soldiers, Violent Criminals, bullies, madmen like Hitler, Bushjr.... this bunch should be denied of any sharp implements and have a projectile in procession... LOCKED them UP! Yes? NO? Maybe?

WBHAHAHHHAAAAAA
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#146639 Jan 2, 2013
Clearly a great argument for free healthcare for all whilst addressing the gun availability issue in parallel.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
* Heart disease: 599,413
* Cancer: 567,628
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
* Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
* Diabetes: 68,705
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
* Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
* Firearm murders: 8,563
And y'all wanna focus on gun control?!
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#146640 Jan 2, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the best answer would be to adopt similar laws to other countries where the problems of gun crime are less. But I cant see that happening, cause the love affair with guns is so strong.
As a point of interest, I was reading a US Christian forum, where the majority was very strongly in favour of assult weapons. I find it interesting that the two go together, a Bible in one hand, and an assult weapon in the other.
See my post about biometric/ Profiling is one good way to separate those who have violent streaks ... should not be allowed near any projectiles...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#146641 Jan 2, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was a kid in school, I was taught that America was built by taking the best ideas from the rest of the world. Other than some very big mistakes, like slavery and segregation, I believed that.
Nowadays, we are sometimes too prideful to say that another country has a better idea than us and sometimes I think we are smart not going down the same path as others. Unfortunately, we mostly rely on our news programs and they are quite unreliable! Every month or so, someone on one of the news programs gets busted for lying, skewing the data, or ignoring an issue that makes their party look bad. People complain that news organizations should not be in bed with a political party, but that falls on deaf ears.
Travel is the best way to broaden your mind! I have been to Sydney several times and loved it each time. I even stayed at Kings Cross!
I have been to Perth and I loved it! Beer cost a lot more but I loved the people and the weather! Most of the people that I hung out with, were also travelers and knew that Americans were not what they saw on TV.
What to do about the homeless? If I had the answer for that, I would be king of the world! First, I think you have to find out why they are homeless and deal with it from there. If a person wants to be homeless, can I take that freedom away from him? If they are mentally challenged, then surely they should be put in a home and cared for. If they are just down on their luck, then they should be helped! I don't understand why we don't push education in the country!
It would be nice if you could know which people to help and which are too lazy to worry about.
When I was at Uni I ran into some Swedes. Curiosity got the better of and I had to ask them they where here (I mean here of all places). To which I got an answer that blew my socks off.

Apparently in Sweden if you can gain entrance to any university in the world and that uni is a leader some field or other, then the Swedish government will fully fund you.

The idea is that when you return to Sweden you bring back the best from around the world.

BTW Why were you out here, holiday?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146642 Jan 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
My hands are weapons but they are first just hands.
A gun is a instrument it's use could be as a weapon.
Yeah.

And its use COULD be to hammer nails.

Right?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146643 Jan 2, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet they , like full auto weapons, arelegal to own in most of the USA.
When was the last time you heard of a full auto or silenced weapon used in a crime ? Please provide proof <court transcripts>
All the anti-gun nuts are clueless and usually liars.
Silencers are legal?

Where?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#146644 Jan 2, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Silencers are legal?
Where?
Shhhhhhh. It's a secret.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#146645 Jan 2, 2013
In order to justify the denial of a constitutional right, the government would need a lot more than a profile, biometric or otherwise--that's the difference between a right and a privilege. Our laws allow denying even the right to vote to convicted felons, but the rest of us enjoy all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I doubt that denying any rights based on profiling would survive a court challenge. That's why it makes more sense to define rights more precisely than to deny them to any class of citizens.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146646 Jan 2, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet they , like full auto weapons, arelegal to own in most of the USA.
When was the last time you heard of a full auto or silenced weapon used in a crime ? Please provide proof <court transcripts>
All the anti-gun nuts are clueless and usually liars.
I just looked.

They are legal in some states.

Not mine.

And I'm sure you won't get this, but I'm not an anti-gun nut.

If you tried following along without your confirmation bias, you would know this.

And outside of being the same kind of liar that everybody is (I.E., No. That dress doesn't make your ass look big.), you owe me an apology.

I won't hold my breath, though.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146647 Jan 2, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the best answer would be to adopt similar laws to other countries where the problems of gun crime are less. But I cant see that happening, cause the love affair with guns is so strong.
As a point of interest, I was reading a US Christian forum, where the majority was very strongly in favour of assult weapons. I find it interesting that the two go together, a Bible in one hand, and an assult weapon in the other.
Let's not forget the hip flask of Jack Daniels in their pocket.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#146648 Jan 2, 2013
UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>See my post about biometric/ Profiling is one good way to separate those who have violent streaks ... should not be allowed near any projectiles...
There's a brain scan now that shows a specific area of the brain that doesn't register in psychopaths.

An interesting part of this finding was that the man who discovered it did a scan on himself and found the he was actually a psychopath.

After the scan, he recognized the properties of psychopathy in himself that he hadn't realized before.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min It aint necessari... 773,455
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 46 min Dolphin 441,751
Why black people smell like poop (Nov '11) 47 min Politically Incor... 25
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr hojo 558,855
IRA fading away, analysts say (Sep '08) 1 hr rock white 14
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr arabian 5,492
kelly bright 3 hr bigbadwolf91869 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr AussieBobby 264,978
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr lil whispers 604,737
More from around the web