Are firearms the problem? [W:874]

[American]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Totally 100% agree....Education, education, education. The question is, who teaches and who decides the curriculum?



Not to be argumentative, but you make it sound like the problem can be solved so easily. To get to where you want to be requires a lot of work. In the meantime, I think the best way to incentivize people to be responsible for their weapons, period.



I thought I touched on both and I agree. Since you can't identify the desires of every person, it's important to have a system in place that attempts to identify the minds that are clearly unfit to own a weapon and to create a culture of responsibility for everyone else.

If a firearm owner has never had his weapon taken, or accidently discharged it, does it mean that that person is "responsible"? Maybe maybe not. I think there are a lot of people that are very irresponsible who are just fortunate that nothing has ever happened to them or someone else around them.

It may sound like I think it's easy, but I didn't say anything about ease. We don't teach much about right and wrong anymore in this society, because we've grown a crop of people in this country who argue that right and wrong is totally subjective..........meaning don't tell me what to do because it's up to each person. That's nothing more than a cop-out in order to have no standards whatsoever. So schools no longer enforce any discipline or basic respect. Morals are left up to Hollywood who push an anything-goes mentality. My father had a gun rack up on the wall with a 12 gauge in it, and no locks anywhere. It never once even occurred to me to take that gun and go shoot a teacher or someone I didn't like. I never even thought about hitting a teacher. Now with guns locked in safes and gun-free zones everywhere, we have a huge problem of people with attitudes and the balls to carry guns around to shoot someone they don't like. So what changed? It sure as hell isn't the guns. Kids aren't being taught basic discipline and respect for authority. No standards of right and wrong are being promoted in the name of political correctness.

 

[Blue_State]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I would like to see each state pass a law that if you are a gun owner and have children in that home, there should be a reasonable safety in place on all weapons in that home. Each state is different in that regard. I prefer a safe in my home but I am sure there are acceptable ways to do this.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

His point is sound-we have lots of people who pretend to support the right but quickly want to bargain it away. If you support limitations that have no rational reason you don't support the right. IF you say 30 rounds is too much you have set the stage for 7 round limits.

Any yet, he, or you, haven't asked me what I think. If you did you'd know I don't support limits on ammunition or mags and I understand the problem that registration presents. I can't believe that he, and perhaps you, are finding it difficult to understand the tone of my posts. I support our right to own arms, what I'd like to see is a culture of responsibility grow within the owner community. I think there are too many people who think because they have the right to keep and bear arms that they don't have the responsibility.

To that point, it doesn't take an accident to be irresponsible? Is leaving the front door on your home irresponsible? What are the chances that someone would break into your house if you did?

Given the effort to lock your doors, even though the risk is miniscule, most of us still do it. If the child of a homeowner were abducted and it was learned that the parents didn't lock their doors, they would rightly be called irresponsible, completely independant of the number of children abducted because of an unsecured home.

If a child can get a gun in a home with no more effort than it takes to grab a Coke from the fridge, then the owner of that weapon is irresponsible, even if that never actually happens in their home. I'm saying that if it can be proven that a child or a criminal took possession of an unsecured weapon that the owner of that weapon be subjected to some form of punishment. As it stands now the extreme on the side for gun rights isn't willing to concede anything out of a legitimate fear that concessions lead to cultural acceptance of limitations on guns. The extreme anti-gun crowd needs to understand that they provide fuel, that is, justification for the extreme on the other side and in the end are doing more harm than good.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I would like to see each state pass a law that if you are a gun owner and have children in that home, there should be a reasonable safety in place on all weapons in that home. Each state is different in that regard. I prefer a safe in my home but I am sure there are acceptable ways to do this.

I know you mean well but I don't want the government in my home.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

If a child can get a gun in a home with no more effort than it takes to grab a Coke from the fridge, then the owner of that weapon is irresponsible, even if that never actually happens in their home. I'm saying that if it can be proven that a child or a criminal took possession of an unsecured weapon that the owner of that weapon be subjected to some form of punishment. As it stands now the extreme on the side for gun rights isn't willing to concede anything out of a legitimate fear that concessions lead to cultural acceptance of limitations on guns. The extreme anti-gun crowd needs to understand that they provide fuel, that is, justification for the extreme on the other side and in the end are doing more harm than good.

Yet I grew up in the country where all of us "kids" has easy access to guns and we went hunting all the time. I fail to see what you think the problem is.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

James,

You can be obtuse and continue to try to imagine me however you wish, that is your right.

-Cheers

So you do not support denying citizens who paid their debt to society their right to keep and bear arms, a universal background check which will be used to pave the way for firearm registration and a ban on certain firearms and magazine capacities?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

His point is sound-we have lots of people who pretend to support the right but quickly want to bargain it away. If you support limitations that have no rational reason you don't support the right. IF you say 30 rounds is too much you have set the stage for 7 round limits.

That is not correct for many people. There are many people like me who support the right to keep and bear arms but also are open to reasonable and common sense controls and regulations. Heck, even a manority of NRA members supported closing the private sale loophole when surveyed.

Lots of folks agree that having a firearm for personal protection, home protection, business protections, hunting and sporting purposes, and other such usages are fine with them
and they have no trouble with that. To say that if people believe you should not have a 30 round capacity on a firearm then you are not supportive of the right is simply not the case with lots of folks.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Agreed. The fact that our society protects the rights of criminals over their victims these days is not helping.

Oh so true. Today I heard about a guy that kidnapped two kids (boy and girl) and the police are looking for him. He is believed to be in the area. They believe he killed the kid along with other people. They gave a poster with pictures of both kids to this guy I know at a gas station but when he asked for a picture of the kidnapper they told him that they couldn't give him one as it would violate the guys privacy Rights. I was like WTF? They have wanted posters all the time!?!? What makes this guy so *'ing special?

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

To that point, it doesn't take an accident to be irresponsible? Is leaving the front door on your home irresponsible? What are the chances that someone would break into your house if you did?.

A crook will break into your home regardless if it locked or not.

Given the effort to lock your doors, even though the risk is miniscule, most of us still do it. If the child of a homeowner were abducted and it was learned that the parents didn't lock their doors, they would rightly be called irresponsible, completely independant of the number of children abducted because of an unsecured home.

If some scumbag wants to abduct a child a lock on the door is not going to stop them. You severely underestimate the bag guys.

If a child can get a gun in a home with no more effort than it takes to grab a Coke from the fridge, then the owner of that weapon is irresponsible, even if that never actually happens in their home.

If a child is dangerous with a firearm its because a parent didn't instill and teach the child proper firearm safety.A good idea would be public service commercials advocating that parents teach and instill proper firearm safety, to not point a gun at someone and so on and to advocate that schools teach children proper firearm safety and handling.We tell kids to not run with scissors, to use a condom, to not talk to strangers and to not do drugs.In a country with over 310 million civilian owned firearms it should be common sense for schools to teach firearm safety and handling to children.

I'm saying that if it can be proven that a child or a criminal took possession of an unsecured weapon that the owner of that weapon be subjected to some form of punishment.

If a home is locked then it is secured.Therefore the weapon itself is secured.

As it stands now the extreme on the side for gun rights isn't willing to concede anything out of a legitimate fear that concessions lead to cultural acceptance of limitations on guns.

The extreme side or gun rights? You mean opposing any infringements makes you an extremist?

The extreme anti-gun crowd needs to understand that they provide fuel, that is, justification for the extreme on the other side and in the end are doing more harm than good

The anti-2nd amendment crowd doesn't give two ****s about the right to keep and bear arms.Every concession the 2nd amendment side gives is a victory to the anti-2nd amendment side.The anti-2nd amendment side has not given a single thing in exchange for the 2nd amendment giving in. This is why 2nd amendment advocates in general must stand up to the anti-2nd amendment side.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

That is not correct for many people. There are many people like me who support the right to keep and bear arms but also are open to reasonable and common sense controls and regulations.

What would those "reasonable" and "common sense" controls and regulations be that you support?

Heck, even a manority of NRA members supported closing the private sale loophole when surveyed.

First of all the NRA has been known to cave to anti-2nd amendment trash and second when was this survey taken?

To say that if people believe you should not have a 30 round capacity on a firearm then you are not supportive of the right is simply not the case with lots of folks.

Sorry but you can not support magazine capacity limitations and claim to support the 2nd amendment at the same time.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

It may sound like I think it's easy, but I didn't say anything about ease. We don't teach much about right and wrong anymore in this society, because we've grown a crop of people in this country who argue that right and wrong is totally subjective..........meaning don't tell me what to do because it's up to each person. That's nothing more than a cop-out in order to have no standards whatsoever.

I don't entirely disagree with the tone of what you said, but I have to say that I think that morality, to a degree is subjective, but there are objective truths given a set of circumstances. In other words, before I can judge the right or wrong of an action, I need to know the situation that surrounded it. For the record I don't believe that morality is "personal". What I beleive is a little hard to explain in the context of a gun rights thread.

Morality really isn't the topic of this post, I'd be happy to discuss (it could be interesting!), but probably best you, or someone else cut and paste and start a new thread. If you do, make sure and let me know what objective ruleset you use...Oh and let me know where to find the thread.

So schools no longer enforce any discipline or basic respect.

Is this really the job of our schools? Parents should be enforcing respect, not teachers. My children are respectful in school, because I teach them respect at home.

Morals are left up to Hollywood who push an anything-goes mentality.

Hollywood makes movies. They are not in the business of "teaching" anything. If children are learning from the TV, it's because thier parents have failed them.

My father had a gun rack up on the wall with a 12 gauge in it, and no locks anywhere. It never once even occurred to me to take that gun and go shoot a teacher or someone I didn't like.

As did I, but you never touched it because you know the consequences that went along with it. Having said that, for all the lacking of discipline and trouble in schools, why are most crime statistics falling?

I never even thought about hitting a teacher. Now with guns locked in safes and gun-free zones everywhere, we have a huge problem of people with attitudes and the balls to carry guns around to shoot someone they don't like. So what changed? It sure as hell isn't the guns. Kids aren't being taught basic discipline and respect for authority. No standards of right and wrong are being promoted in the name of political correctness.

Parents don't understand that you teach your children how to treat you. Most parents what their children to like them, or they say something and their children nag them until the parent changes their mind. This teaches the child, nag, scream and cry to get your way.

What standards of right and wrong can't be taught in the name of PC?

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

So you do not support denying citizens who paid their debt to society their right to keep and bear arms

Depends on what they did to owe a debt to society. I would judge based on the crime, but I would say that in most cases the answer is no.

a universal background check which will be used to pave the way for firearm registration

Background checks, yes, but I understand your apprehension. Having said that, I work in data storage (I manage petabytes of data). I can say that given what I know about the capabilities of analytics and hardware built specifically to mine data, that data mining provides much of the information that you claim to value. I'm not saying it's ok, or trying to justify registration, I'm just telling you the unfortunate reality. Within 10 years, I'd guess that the government will know who most of the gun owners are anyway.

and a ban on certain firearms and magazine capacities?

Magazines, no bans, period. The idea that making a magazine smaller will save lives is silly.....Ban on certain weapons? For the most part I don't support bans on weapons. The term "assault rifle" is a euphemism meant to engender scary thoughts. You and I know that the AR-15 is a scary assault rifle, while the Ruger mini-14 (Ranch Rifle) isn't (hopefully you're reading the sarcasm). I know it's silly.... I think there is little common sense being applied.

I'm open to suggestions and all of my opinions aren't written in stone. I reserve the right to change my mind in either direction because I base my ideas on what I think are broader root cause or deciding what a rule or law is supposed to be accomplishing.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

What would those "reasonable" and "common sense" controls and regulations be that you support?



First of all the NRA has been known to cave to anti-2nd amendment trash and second when was this survey taken?




Sorry but you can not support magazine capacity limitations and claim to support the 2nd amendment at the same time.

Yes you can. I have sat around the table with lots of folks - both in formal political situations with people from both parties and in just friends and family situation. Over and over and over again I keep hearing the same opinion: don't mess with people who have guns for hunting or protection or sport but screw this nonsense that people need military weaponry capable of taking otu large numbers of people in a very short amount of time. I keep hearing the opinion that nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment and making people identify themselves and get a simply background check before buying a gun is just common sense.

Outside of the internet - I have never head anybody say that they needed weaponry on a level with the police or military just in case they someday had to fight in the second American revolution and needed to kill their fellow Americans...... which seems to be a prime motivation for some folks fighting the internet posting battles.

As to the poll showing NRA support

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

http://www.politifact.com/texas/art...gwell-says-americans-nra-members-widely-supp/

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

That is not correct for many people. There are many people like me who support the right to keep and bear arms but also are open to reasonable and common sense controls and regulations. Heck, even a manority of NRA members supported closing the private sale loophole when surveyed.

Lots of folks agree that having a firearm for personal protection, home protection, business protections, hunting and sporting purposes, and other such usages are fine with them
and they have no trouble with that. To say that if people believe you should not have a 30 round capacity on a firearm then you are not supportive of the right is simply not the case with lots of folks.

what you consider reasonable and common sense often do not meet that test with those of us who actually understand firearms and the attempts to ban them incrementally.

and if you think there is a proper reason to limit magazine capacity to below what is the standard for the weapon in question, then there is nothing that will stop what we see is happening in places like NYS. Most people don't understand what really motivates the incrementalists so they might accept initial steps out of ignorance

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

what you consider reasonable and common sense often do not meet that test with those of us who actually understand firearms and the attempts to ban them incrementally.

and if you think there is a proper reason to limit magazine capacity to below what is the standard for the weapon in question, then there is nothing that will stop what we see is happening in places like NYS. Most people don't understand what really motivates the incrementalists so they might accept initial steps out of ignorance

And let me take a wild guess here..................... the people you refer to as to actually understanding firearms and this issue would be folks like yourself who share your beliefs?

So those who disagree with your position are either
1- gun haters gun grabbers and just plain anti-gun, or
2- Democrats carrying out their nefrious anti-gun agenda, or
3- the just plain ignorant an uninformed, or
4 - the naive

You do not see how these could be average Americans who support the right to have a gun for the previous reasons I listed but simply are ready to support such things like background checks and limits on firepower?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

And let me take a wild guess here..................... the people you refer to as to actually understanding firearms and this issue would be folks like yourself who share your beliefs?

So those who disagree with your position are either
1- gun haters gun grabbers and just plain anti-gun, or
2- Democrats carrying out their nefrious anti-gun agenda, or
3- the just plain ignorant an uninformed, or
4 - the naive

You do not see how these could be average Americans who support the right to have a gun for the previous reasons I listed but simply are ready to support such things like background checks and limits on firepower?

exactly-tell us Haymarket why should there be a limit on capacity given NYS has proven that in reaction to someone using a 30 round (standard capacity) illegally possessed rifle to commit premeditated murder the government banned 10 round capacity and limited it to 7?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

exactly-tell us Haymarket why should there be a limit on capacity given NYS has proven that in reaction to someone using a 30 round (standard capacity) illegally possessed rifle to commit premeditated murder the government banned 10 round capacity and limited it to 7?

So that example somehow is suppose to invalidate the desire of people of common sense to question why a thirty round capacity is necessary?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

So that example somehow is suppose to invalidate the desire of people of common sense to question why a thirty round capacity is necessary?

there is no common sense support for such a position and since the Government has determined that such standard capacity magazines are militia suitable-=and issues them for both the national guard and many police departments, such restrictions are contrary to the second amendment as it was intended at the two most recent decisions that are relevant-Miller and Heller

since you claim it is common sense the duty is on you to tell us at what number of rounds below standard capacity the line is breached and the limitations are no longer valid

I bet you will refuse to answer

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

there is no common sense support for such a position and since the Government has determined that such standard capacity magazines are militia suitable-=and issues them for both the national guard and many police departments, such restrictions are contrary to the second amendment as it was intended at the two most recent decisions that are relevant-Miller and Heller

since you claim it is common sense the duty is on you to tell us at what number of rounds below standard capacity the line is breached and the limitations are no longer valid

I bet you will refuse to answer

My own personal opinion is that a gun capable of firing ten rounds is more than enough for civilian usage.... civilians being not in the military of on the police force.

You lose the bet.

But my post was not about ME - and I hope your post is not about YOU. My post was to say that the vast vast majority of Americans that I hear voicing an opinion on this issue who are not on either fringe of that issue, simply want the right to be protected and at the same time reasonably regulated and controlled.

Of course since such Americans are neither gun banners who want to abolish them and the right nor are they gun worshippers with Playboy style pin-ups of weaponry over their bed - they become the target of both extremes.

 

[American]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

I don't entirely disagree with the tone of what you said, but I have to say that I think that morality, to a degree is subjective, but there are objective truths given a set of circumstances. In other words, before I can judge the right or wrong of an action, I need to know the situation that surrounded it. For the record I don't believe that morality is "personal". What I beleive is a little hard to explain in the context of a gun rights thread.

Morality really isn't the topic of this post, I'd be happy to discuss (it could be interesting!), but probably best you, or someone else cut and paste and start a new thread. If you do, make sure and let me know what objective ruleset you use...Oh and let me know where to find the thread.



Is this really the job of our schools? Parents should be enforcing respect, not teachers. My children are respectful in school, because I teach them respect at home.



Hollywood makes movies. They are not in the business of "teaching" anything. If children are learning from the TV, it's because thier parents have failed them.



As did I, but you never touched it because you know the consequences that went along with it. Having said that, for all the lacking of discipline and trouble in schools, why are most crime statistics falling?



Parents don't understand that you teach your children how to treat you. Most parents what their children to like them, or they say something and their children nag them until the parent changes their mind. This teaches the child, nag, scream and cry to get your way.

What standards of right and wrong can't be taught in the name of PC?

How about failure for one? How about the bull**** grading system concept we went through where no one gets an "F", where everyone gets a trophy for participating. How about no tolerance policies about the drawing of a gun, or pointing a finger? Talk about confusing and unsubstantiated approaches to discipline; making something wrong that isnt' wrong at all. How about not saying the Pledge of Allegiance because someone may not like America, or because there's a Mexican in the class or multiculturalism or some other nonsense? How about shutting down student led prayer because of an inappropriate application of the 1st Amendment? And yeah, parents are failing because of the societal pressure to maintain "self-esteem"? Self-esteem was another PC concept that led to a lot of the stupid idea I just described.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

My own personal opinion is that a gun capable of firing ten rounds is more than enough for civilian usage.... civilians being not in the military of on the police force.

You lose the bet.

But my post was not about ME - and I hope your post is not about YOU. My post was to say that the vast vast majority of Americans that I hear voicing an opinion on this issue who are not on either fringe of that issue, simply want the right to be protected and at the same time reasonably regulated and controlled.

Of course since such Americans are neither gun banners who want to abolish them and the right nor are they gun worshippers with Playboy style pin-ups of weaponry over their bed - they become the target of both extremes.

so what expertise allows you to determine 10 rounds

given every major city has determined that 17 round handguns and 30 round magazine rifles are the MOST suitable for self defense against criminals it appears your number is something you just made up (as did the people who passed the law in 94)

to make your claim credible you have to prove that

1) those legally able to own guns cannot be trusted with more than ten rounds

2) those legally able to use guns become too dangerous when allowed to possess more than 10 round magazines

3) those legally able to use guns are not likely to confront the same level of criminal attack as cops

4) and that 10 rounds will not lead to say 7 rounds

You cannot make any of those arguments sufficiently to justify your position

why are you safe with people owning 10 round magazine guns but not 12?

the bottom line is if you don't trust us to have 30 round weapons you really don't trust us to own any firearms

that is the bottom line

Oh and the police are not civilian idiocy is just that

Civilian cops and civilan store keepers face exactly the same hostile criminal threats and in most cases, the shopkeeper does not have near the advantages police do

 

[haymarket]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

so what expertise allows you to determine 10 rounds

You asked for my personal opinion and I gave it to you.

I arrived at ten by taking the number of apostles present at the Last Supper - 12. Adding the number of innings in a normal baseball game -9. Dividing by the number of Deadly Sins -7. Add in the famous Three Blind Mice and the Musketeers. Then add in the One Ring from Middle earth.

The number is then 10.

If that method does not ring true, lets try this:

Start with the number of members in the Fantastic Four. Add to that the number which Abe Lincoln was president - 16th. Add to that the number of pins on a standard bowling alley - 10. then divide that sum by the number of Men in the Tub - 3 and you get..................... TEN.

Of course, we could simply allow technology to regulate this but then that would make about the same sense as the two methods I just provided as a jest.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

You asked for my personal opinion and I gave it to you.

I arrived at ten by taking the number of apostles present at the Last Supper - 12. Adding the number of innings in a normal baseball game -9. Dividing by the number of Deadly Sins -7. Add in the famous Three Blind Mice and the Musketeers. Then add in the One Ring from Middle earth.

The number is then 10.

If that method does not ring true, lets try this:

Start with the number of members in the Fantastic Four. Add to that the number which Abe Lincoln was president - 16th. Add to that the number of pins on a standard bowling alley - 10. then divide that sum by the number of Men in the Tub - 3 and you get..................... TEN.

Of course, we could simply allow technology to regulate this but then that would make about the same sense as the two methods I just provided as a jest.

I did not expect an argument based on reality

here is what you should argue

1) most gun owners are completely trustworthy. They will properly use one shot, 10 shot or 100 shot weapons and in some cases, they will face increased levels of danger if their weapons are arbitrarily limited to a certain number of bullets

2) criminals or others with disqualifying features such as mental defects or being under indictments for violent felonies don't obey gun laws and cannot legally own any firearm nor be trusted with any firearm.

3) in order to prevent a FEW people in category two, it is justifiable to ban every single person who is a law abiding citizen because the good that comes from preventing a few criminals from being unable to obtain a normal capacity magazine outweighs all the inconvenience or even harm visited on millions of gun owners

That is the rational argument that can only be attacked based on the values of harming millions to prevent harm by a few

rather than pretending most honest people do not "NEED" or have no USE for stuff that the governments have already determined are highly suitable for legitimate uses.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

How about failure for one? How about the bull**** grading system concept we went through where no one gets an "F", where everyone gets a trophy for participating. How about no tolerance policies about the drawing of a gun, or pointing a finger? Talk about confusing and unsubstantiated approaches to discipline; making something wrong that isnt' wrong at all. How about not saying the Pledge of Allegiance because someone may not like America, or because there's a Mexican in the class or multiculturalism or some other nonsense? How about shutting down student led prayer because of an inappropriate application of the 1st Amendment? And yeah, parents are failing because of the societal pressure to maintain "self-esteem"? Self-esteem was another PC concept that led to a lot of the stupid idea I just described.

There is a lot there and I don't claim to have explanations to all of it.

In the interest of playing devils advocate, I'll offer the following...

First I agree that too much protection of children's feelings at the expense of letting them experience failure as a real and tangible part of life is, for the most part a mistake.

As far as trophies go I understand your point, especially as children reach adolescence, though our system tries to push most kids of wildly varying talents and abilities with different types and capacities for learning through the same curriculum. If the goal is to educate, then I'd say that our education system is archaic and could be greatly improved, so that self esteem wouldn't need to be preserved though telling a child they are never wrong, rather the success they achieve when their individual aptitudes are identified and children naturally reach their potential.

I am just such an example....I was , for the most part terrible in school, though when individually evaluated, I tested on or above my grade level. Back in the 70's the system had no idea what to do with me. The problem is that my aptitude for learning wasn't compatible with the way that school was taught.

I'm going to have to give the pledge thing more thought, I have mixed feelings and am not ready to make a comment.

Far as drawing guns....It's ironic as I read a story two days ago about a kid who ate his pop tart into the shape of a gun and got sent to the principal's office. Yea, don't even have words for this. I can't even play devils advocate on this....Crazy...

Far as prayer, I have no problem with kids praying whenever or wherever they want, just don't set aside "special time" for it. There should be enough time for kids to pray in school without "special time" for it.

I understand the concept of self esteem and I think it is a relevant concept, but like most things it can be taken too far and the examples you have cited are examples of this.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

You asked for my personal opinion and I gave it to you.

I arrived at ten by taking the number of apostles present at the Last Supper - 12. Adding the number of innings in a normal baseball game -9. Dividing by the number of Deadly Sins -7. Add in the famous Three Blind Mice and the Musketeers. Then add in the One Ring from Middle earth.

The number is then 10.

If that method does not ring true, lets try this:

Start with the number of members in the Fantastic Four. Add to that the number which Abe Lincoln was president - 16th. Add to that the number of pins on a standard bowling alley - 10. then divide that sum by the number of Men in the Tub - 3 and you get..................... TEN.

Of course, we could simply allow technology to regulate this but then that would make about the same sense as the two methods I just provided as a jest.

So the question is.. do you really feel that such arbitrary methods.. in jest or not.. should be the way that we determine limits on peoples rights?

YOU feel that 10 rounds is enough, another 3 another 30. Who decides?

I don't think that laws should be put into effect simply to appease someones unfounded fears. Whether we are talking about magazine restrictions, or say Voter ID laws (the republican version of unfounded fears).