Alabama Shooting

Solitary said:
What happened is exceedingly rare. You make it sound as though, people are gunning folks down in the streets because there is no prayer in schools.
It happened back when, and it happens now. The difference is the coverage of the events. Charles Whitman went to a christian school and he still climbed into that clock tower and murdered 14 people and injured more than that.
Click to expand...

No telling what the deal was with Charles Whitman, he is one example you have named, who you claim went to christian school... I don't know, maybe his parents were wacko nutbags? Maybe he was molested by his father or mother as a child? Maybe sending him to christian school was some sick perverted way for his parents to deal with their guilt of what they did to him? These are just things we don't really know or understand, and besides... I have not said that christian upbringing ensures against someone being a fruitcake when they grow up! That continues to be an argument you would like to twist my words into, but it is just plain factually dishonest.

I am not bowing up and taking any atheistic stand. Why is it that a person has to either want religion in schools or they are an atheist hell-bent on destroying paradise? That sort of black & white thinking is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes you are! Repeatedly, you take the same anti-religious, anti-God stand, and make no bones about it! Then you come off trying to sound like you have some kind of personal relationship with God, and don't profess to be an Atheist yourself! You sure as fuck carry their water a lot, not to be one of them, that's all I can say!

Who is ripping, tearing, or snorting at religion? I am not against religion. I am against forced religion. And it was not generic prayer or meditation back in the day. It was the Lord's Prayer. That is solely a christian prayer. Nothing wrong with that in church. In fact, I will fight for your right to recite it in church. But not in public schools.
Click to expand...

What the fuck is wrong with the Lord's Prayer? What the fuck difference does it make if it was a Christian prayer? Why shouldn't we expect our children to respect the religion of others, and respect something greater than self?

Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Now what is so fucking threatening or "wrong" about that message? It seems to me, it's a fairly innocuous and benign statement, giving honor and thanks to God and offering forgiveness to our fellow man. It doesn't say... yea be unto you, ye shall all be a Christian by force or you will burn in hell!

You have become so hypersensitive to anything related to Christianity, you've completely lost sight of what Christianity teaches. The basic values and lessons are life lessons, they aren't "religion specific" things, which only apply to Christians! They are lessons we can all follow, whether we are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Atheist, if we have any level of moral human decency! I am not Christian, I am a Spiritualist, I don't profess to agree with all Christian dogma, and I don't worship the same version of God as people of the Christian or Jewish faith, but I have a great deal of respect for those people, and their faith. It doesn't bother me to say a Christian prayer, or to bow my head when someone else says one... my skin isn't going to fall off my bones, I am not going to keel over and die because it was said in my presence, and to pretend that such a prayer is somehow "forcing" religion on someone, is stupid beyond belief. Of ALL religions, Christianity is the LEAST likely to be "forced" on anyone, because it is a religion of acceptance! You must accept that Jesus Christ died for your sins on the cross, otherwise, you can not claim to be a Christian! It simply CAN'T BE forced on you against your will... it's IMPOSSIBLE!

And there is a profound difference between representing a single religion (as in what Roy Moore did) and representing a variety of beliefs and historical figures. You are smart enough to know that, but too stubborn to admit it.
Click to expand...

Again.... You said yourself, the 10 Commandments are part of TWO religions, and I added, they are closely aligned with the Code of Hammurabi, which is much older than Christianity or Judaism. So, no "single" religion was represented, and the monument's intent was NOT to represent a religion! But... so fucking what if they were? The Constitution says Congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion, and a frickin' marble monument is NOT an establishment of a religion in any way! Furthermore, the Constitution goes on to say, Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion, which displaying the monument supposedly was, according to you!
 
Mottleydude said:
There is some truth to what your saying but 3 of those people were killed by his just randomly spraying the street with bullets. I think those lives might have been saved.

I'm not advocating a ban on anything per se so much as advocating a discussion on public safety and what can be done to prevent the abuse of these weapons which were designed specifically to kill people.

Should there be greater regulation on their sales and manufactur? Licensing requirements for those who wish to purchase these? Background and criminal checks? I'm open to ideas here.
Click to expand...
The problem with your questions is they are all focused on the assumption that availability of the firearms is a factor in these types of incidents. That is not a valid assumption.

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines, in one form or another, have been widely available since WWII. Yet we did not start having these kinds of incidents until a couple decades ago. In fact, the farther back in time you go, the MORE available firearms of all types were to the general public. In the 60s and 70s you could go out and buy an M1 carbine with a satchel full of 30 round clips for just a couple hundred bucks, and a case of 1080 rounds of ammo on stripper clips for another hundred. Even class III, full auto firearms were available (prior to 1986) to those willing to go through the paperwork and pay the rather exorbitant licensing fees. Yet, simultaneously, the farther back in time you look, the fewer of these types of random mass murder you will find.

That is not to say that higher availability of firearms itself decreases the chances of such an incident (though there are studies suggesting so). But there are two points immediately, and undeniably apparent from the above facts of firearms availability and mass murder incidents. The first obvious fact is that there are other factors - having nothing to do with firearms availability - that are leading to these mass-murder incidents. The second fact is that, with all the gun licensing, NICS, registration, etc laws enacted over the years have had ZERO effect on reducing the likelyhood or frequency of these tragedies.

As such, additional regulations and other types of barriers (including outright bans) on firearms will NOT achieve your desired goal of addressing public safety from "mad men with guns". Focusing on the firearms are nothing more than a politically expedient, do nothing, feel-good response to these tragedies. The drawback is when you focus on a factor which is NOT a cause of a tragedy, it prevents you from asking the essential questions abut what IS causing these tragedies.
 
Dixie, can you imagine the uproar if there was a muslim prayer in a high school in Alabama?

Or a hindu chant at a pep rally at a Mississippi school?

There would be riots.




I don't carry water for anyone. I stand, as I swore to do, behind theUS Comstitution. And I think the staff of the school leading the entire student body in reciting the Lord's Prayer is unconstitutional.
 
Good Luck said:
The problem with your questions is they are all focused on the assumption that availability of the firearms is a factor in these types of incidents. That is not a valid assumption.

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines, in one form or another, have been widely available since WWII. Yet we did not start having these kinds of incidents until a couple decades ago. In fact, the farther back in time you go, the MORE available firearms of all types were to the general public. In the 60s and 70s you could go out and buy an M1 carbine with a satchel full of 30 round clips for just a couple hundred bucks, and a case of 1080 rounds of ammo on stripper clips for another hundred. Even class III, full auto firearms were available (prior to 1986) to those willing to go through the paperwork and pay the rather exorbitant licensing fees. Yet, simultaneously, the farther back in time you look, the fewer of these types of random mass murder you will find.

That is not to say that higher availability of firearms itself decreases the chances of such an incident (though there are studies suggesting so). But there are two points immediately, and undeniably apparent from the above facts of firearms availability and mass murder incidents. The first obvious fact is that there are other factors - having nothing to do with firearms availability - that are leading to these mass-murder incidents. The second fact is that, with all the gun licensing, NICS, registration, etc laws enacted over the years have had ZERO effect on reducing the likelyhood or frequency of these tragedies.

As such, additional regulations and other types of barriers (including outright bans) on firearms will NOT achieve your desired goal of addressing public safety from "mad men with guns". Focusing on the firearms are nothing more than a politically expedient, do nothing, feel-good response to these tragedies. The drawback is when you focus on a factor which is NOT a cause of a tragedy, it prevents you from asking the essential questions abut what IS causing these tragedies.
Click to expand...

Well said! :clink:
 
AssHatZombie said:
Nope. It's two facts.
Click to expand...

It's one claim and an irrelevant fact thrown in that is completely irrelevant in proving your case. A non-sequitor. "Global warming is a lie because CO2 is vital for plant life" is a nonsensical statement. An effective argument requires more than two statements separated by the word "because".
 
Watermark said:
It's one claim and an irrelevant fact thrown in that is completely irrelevant in proving your case. A non-sequitor. "Global warming is a lie because CO2 is vital for plant life" is a nonsensical statement. An effective argument requires more than two statements separated by the word "because".
Click to expand...

And as I said. Those are just two facts. You added the BECAUSE, asshole. At least respond to me and not your delusionary interpretations of what I'm saying.
 
Solitary said:
Dixie, can you imagine the uproar if there was a muslim prayer in a high school in Alabama?

Or a hindu chant at a pep rally at a Mississippi school?

There would be riots.

I don't carry water for anyone. I stand, as I swore to do, behind theUS Comstitution. And I think the staff of the school leading the entire student body in reciting the Lord's Prayer is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Well, if our nation were founded on the principle that Allah endowed us with inalienable rights, I would expect a Muslim prayer to be in order. If 95% of America were Muslim, it might not be all that inappropriate to recite a Muslim prayer instead. If the vast majority of people in Mississippi worshiped cows, perhaps a Hindu chant would be totally acceptable! As it stands, it was God who endowed us with the rights found in the Constitution, and we are mostly a Judeo-Christian nation. Therefore, if you have to pick a particular prayer to recite, the age-old and often recited Lord's Prayer seems fairly appropriate. It doesn't endorse or establish Christianity as a national religion, it is just a set of words to recite. The purpose is not to indoctrinate people into the Christian faith, it is to instill a sense of morality and reverence in our youth. The intent of such an exercise is not to establish a national religion, it is simply a regimen which teaches respect and honor for something more profound than self.

And yes you do indeed carry the water for the Atheist Anti-God heathens who have actively pursued measures to remove anything associated with God from the public arena for over 50 years. In your liberal pinheaded stupidity, you have bought into some silly and ridiculous argument that reciting a prayer is somehow establishing a national religion, that displaying a monument amounts to some forbidden conjoining of Church and State, and you are completely misguided all the way down the line. The proverbial "wall of separation" was articulated as a means to keep government out of the affairs of the church, as was the case with the royal British government and the Church of England. It was never intended or articulated to mean that we should strip any and all references to "God" from our government! Our nation, our Constitution, our very freedoms and liberties, are endowed by Our Creator! It is the cornerstone and foundation for what we are as a nation! To strip that out of the equation, is to undermine the very foundation of our government, which is precisely the goal of Atheist Socialist Communists, and you are their little useful idiot!
 
Dixie said:
Well, if our nation were founded on the principle that Allah endowed us with inalienable rights, I would expect a Muslim prayer to be in order. If 95% of America were Muslim, it might not be all that inappropriate to recite a Muslim prayer instead. If the vast majority of people in Mississippi worshiped cows, perhaps a Hindu chant would be totally acceptable! As it stands, it was God who endowed us with the rights found in the Constitution, and we are mostly a Judeo-Christian nation. Therefore, if you have to pick a particular prayer to recite, the age-old and often recited Lord's Prayer seems fairly appropriate. It doesn't endorse or establish Christianity as a national religion, it is just a set of words to recite. The purpose is not to indoctrinate people into the Christian faith, it is to instill a sense of morality and reverence in our youth. The intent of such an exercise is not to establish a national religion, it is simply a regimen which teaches respect and honor for something more profound than self.

And yes you do indeed carry the water for the Atheist Anti-God heathens who have actively pursued measures to remove anything associated with God from the public arena for over 50 years. In your liberal pinheaded stupidity, you have bought into some silly and ridiculous argument that reciting a prayer is somehow establishing a national religion, that displaying a monument amounts to some forbidden conjoining of Church and State, and you are completely misguided all the way down the line. The proverbial "wall of separation" was articulated as a means to keep government out of the affairs of the church, as was the case with the royal British government and the Church of England. It was never intended or articulated to mean that we should strip any and all references to "God" from our government! Our nation, our Constitution, our very freedoms and liberties, are endowed by Our Creator! It is the cornerstone and foundation for what we are as a nation! To strip that out of the equation, is to undermine the very foundation of our government, which is precisely the goal of Atheist Socialist Communists, and you are their little useful idiot!
Click to expand...

Sure! Its easy to make the claim that its harmless, when you are of the faith that is being used. The other faiths, or those choosing no religion, might think differently.

The US Constitution was written, as it is, by men who had seen the government in the affairs of the church, and the church in the affairs of the government. Not only did they make sure the government did not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, they made sure that it did not prohibit free exercise thereof.

You claim that people of any faith could be included in the things you want for the schools. Well christians and all other faiths are included now. No one prohibiting prayer in schools. Kids can prayer whenever they want. Its not led my the school is the only difference.

And your claim that 'back in the day' when God was in schools, there was less violence? Ok, there was less of certain kinda of violence.

But those were church-going christian men who dragged black men out of their homes and hung them for looking at a white woman. Those were good christian men who burned crosses on people's lawn's.
 
Good Luck said:
The problem with your questions is they are all focused on the assumption that availability of the firearms is a factor in these types of incidents. That is not a valid assumption.

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines, in one form or another, have been widely available since WWII. Yet we did not start having these kinds of incidents until a couple decades ago. In fact, the farther back in time you go, the MORE available firearms of all types were to the general public. In the 60s and 70s you could go out and buy an M1 carbine with a satchel full of 30 round clips for just a couple hundred bucks, and a case of 1080 rounds of ammo on stripper clips for another hundred. Even class III, full auto firearms were available (prior to 1986) to those willing to go through the paperwork and pay the rather exorbitant licensing fees. Yet, simultaneously, the farther back in time you look, the fewer of these types of random mass murder you will find.

That is not to say that higher availability of firearms itself decreases the chances of such an incident (though there are studies suggesting so). But there are two points immediately, and undeniably apparent from the above facts of firearms availability and mass murder incidents. The first obvious fact is that there are other factors - having nothing to do with firearms availability - that are leading to these mass-murder incidents. The second fact is that, with all the gun licensing, NICS, registration, etc laws enacted over the years have had ZERO effect on reducing the likelyhood or frequency of these tragedies.

As such, additional regulations and other types of barriers (including outright bans) on firearms will NOT achieve your desired goal of addressing public safety from "mad men with guns". Focusing on the firearms are nothing more than a politically expedient, do nothing, feel-good response to these tragedies. The drawback is when you focus on a factor which is NOT a cause of a tragedy, it prevents you from asking the essential questions abut what IS causing these tragedies.
Click to expand...

A very good argument. The case in Germany emphasize your point. They have significant gun regulation in germany but yet someone was able to kill 15 school kids.
 
Mottleydude said:
A very good argument. The case in Germany emphasize your point. They have significant gun regulation in germany but yet someone was able to kill 15 school kids.
Click to expand...

In the end, what does that say?

Germany has stringent gun regulation, yet school kids are being killed.

America, where guns are as plentiful as people, school kids still get killed.

But which one is the more violent nation?

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

14.24 vs 1.24 per 100,000 citizens

Not remotely close.

We are higher than even Mexico and Brazil.

Look at the comparison with England where they also have stringent gun control ...

14.24 vs 0.41

The suggestion that gun control doesn't make a difference is untrue.
 
blackascoal said:
In the end, what does that say?

Germany has stringent gun regulation, yet school kids are being killed.

America, where guns are as plentiful as people, school kids still get killed.

But which one is the more violent nation?

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

14.24 vs 1.24 per 100,000 citizens

Not remotely close.

We are higher than even Mexico and Brazil.

Look at the comparison with England where they also have stringent gun control ...

14.24 vs 0.41

The suggestion that gun control doesn't make a difference is untrue.
Click to expand...

BAC, are you suggesting somethin along the lines of the previous assault rifle ban? Or something much stricter, like the gun laws in the UK?
 
freedom is not free

however, it does require personal responsibility

the guy was not insane, he was pissed

also, the rifle was a semi-automatic not a full automatic - it would not have mattered if it was an assault rifle or not...there are semi-automatic rifles that are not assault rifles
 
Solitary said:
BAC, are you suggesting somethin along the lines of the previous assault rifle ban? Or something much stricter, like the gun laws in the UK?
Click to expand...

Honestly my brother I'm not proposing either. This is America where people have orgasms over their guns. Gun sanity will never happen here.

In my opinion, enacting laws similar to those in the UK is the only sane thing to do, but it will never happen here in the the greatest arms selling nation in the world .. which also happens to be the greatest prison nation in human history.

In my opinion, we are not fully sane people.
 
blackascoal said:
Honestly my brother I'm not proposing either. This is America where people have orgasms over their guns. Gun sanity will never happen here.

In my opinion, enacting laws similar to those in the UK is the only sane thing to do, but it will never happen here in the the greatest arms selling nation in the world .. which also happens to be the greatest prison nation in human history.

In my opinion, we are not fully sane people.
Click to expand...


So get out. Guns were used to stop slavery.
 
blackascoal said:
Honestly my brother I'm not proposing either. This is America where people have orgasms over their guns. Gun sanity will never happen here.

In my opinion, enacting laws similar to those in the UK is the only sane thing to do, but it will never happen here in the the greatest arms selling nation in the world .. which also happens to be the greatest prison nation in human history.

In my opinion, we are not fully sane people.
Click to expand...

I never made a claim to sanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top