“We can begin by stopping political atheism from removing the psychological restraints from the masses. This is what happens when the government tells people "Thou shalt not kill" has no place in the class room.”
sunfire1983 on Dec 4, 2012 at 02:08:19
“Murder is illegal in this country whether or not it is a biblical principle. To suggest that atheists are the only ones killing because of separation of church and state is pretty vile.
I'm an atheist I have never killed anybody. The violent crime statistics for atheists are much lower than they are for Christians. Psychopaths like you might need psychological restrains provided by the bible to prevent you from going on killing sprees, but most balanced people do not need this.
For the sake of everybody else I hope you never own a gun and I hope you never lose your bible.”
“People have been killing people since the dawn of civilization, the only difference being weapons have changed in appearance. Someone please tell me how stabbing, hacking or bludgeoning a person to death is any different than shooting a person with a gun? Do guns make it easy? Yes but only for the weak and the elderly. That's where the term "equalizer" came from as in the handgun makes all people equal. Before its advent, the strong preyed upon the weak.”
hoosiercommonsense on Dec 4, 2012 at 02:30:36
“Well, it pretty much seems that in the instance we're discussing, the strong did prey up on the weak. Where's the "equality" in that??”
knelly555 on Dec 4, 2012 at 02:10:53
“The difference between guns and blunt instruments/knives/swords is volume. The mass killings we've seen - in some cases by one individual as we saw in the last year - could not be carried out with a knife and a stick. Basic logic.”
GingerHoney on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:46:55
“And they still do, but this time they're using guns.”
MuchMadness on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:42:34
“What malarkey. The armed intruder usually has an advantage over the armed homeowner. The intruder has the element of surprise, while the homeowner may not even be able to access his weapon.
And a lot of the guns that criminals have were originally obtained by stealing them from the homes of gun owners.
Then there are all of the accidents that result from untrained people handling firearms.
A proliferation of guns makes the work of law enforcement agencies almost impossible, too.”
orcinous on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:39:09
“And they still do.”
jimsey on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:38:20
“"Someone please tell me how stabbing, hacking or bludgeoning a person to death is any different than shooting a person with a gun?"
Ok. Aurora Colorado. Try running into a movie theater and murdering 12 and injuring 58 with a bludgeon, in approximately 7 minutes by the way.”
schotts on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:32:19
“Come on, murder was impossible before the advent of the gun.”
“Anyone who has traveled the world as I have knows just how easily Texas could survive and prosper entirely on its own. Texas is also one of the few states that actually contributes more money to the federal government than it receives and that is the sole reason why it would never be permitted to leave. Without Texan money, the United States would collapse in less than three years.”
rebasfl on Dec 18, 2012 at 16:59:51
“Yes, but were they to leave, the nation would roll up all that highway it paid for and yes, the dam agricultural projects and military and industrial bases gov funds have supported. Then they could start to pay back all the Gov subsidies and monies given them that helped them
become a great state. After all that, they'd be neck and neck with Puerto Rico.”
“How can she be a child molester when 17 year olds have fought as soldiers for our country in Iraq?”
rpa49 on Nov 11, 2012 at 16:21:57
“While a 17 year old person can enter the military, they are forbidden from "fighting" or being in combat.”
TJ Troquille on Nov 10, 2012 at 19:05:40
“while we do have 17 yr olds in the the military, the have to be 18 by the time they complete training, so your statement of we have 17 year old soldiers who fought in Iraq is false”
bigjohn111 on Nov 9, 2012 at 09:49:47
“Only 17 year olds would be one's who the parents sign in to the military. In the 3 years I was in I only knew of two. One in Basic one at Ft. Bragg. Both were messes.”
Jack Ofalltrades on Nov 5, 2012 at 15:27:09
“She isn't - in fact I'm pretty sure she was never even charged with a sex crime, because 17 is a legal age of consent - the only reason she was charged at all is because she was a public employee having a relationship with a student. If she hadn't been a public school teacher, it wouldn't have even been a crime at all.
So the headline was indeed libel. In some states you can legally marry as young as 14 with parental consent - the media outlets who called her a "child molester" and a "female Sandusky" are shameless and had no problem defaming someone with sensationalist headlines just for the ratings - they should be sued out of business.”