CosmicBills

And I am in no way talking about repealing in any way shape or form the 2nd Amendment. Nor am I an idealist who thinks it's possible to live in a world without guns. Not in our lifetimes, not in our children's. But what I am tired of is the NRA pretending to be a defender of the constitution instead of what they truly are: blood sucking vampires who would happily fund the continued self destruction of our country if we keep on pretending they're an independent entity. They're not policy makers, yet for the past five decades we've let them dictate terms to the voters. That ended the moment the (*^*&%^$^#stepped on stage and said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". If that doesn't open everyone's eyes to the lengths the NRA will go to to protect their clients (gun manufacturers and sellers) by proposing a plan that has absolutely ZERO chance of working. Ever. The one thing their plan guarantees though, is a healthy bottom line to the share holders of their benefactors. The fact that the NRA spokesman could stand on that stage one week after the slaughter in CT and blame EVERYTHING but the easy access to weapons of mass carnage should shine a light for every single person on here. Conservative, liberal, libertarian, hell even fence sitters like Adam. The truth is there are literally DOZENS of factors that contributed to the tragedy. For the NRA to ignore one of the primary ones -- not just ignore it, REFUSE to even TALK about it, shows how little they care about finding real solutions. That's a slap in the face to everyone who has EVER contributed to the NRA. Myself included. And yet, despite that, it doesn't stop the violence in Israel and it darn sure won't stop the violence here at home. I'm with you that this is a sad day and something that we shouldn't have to think about. But this isn't an isolated incident. This has become the new normal -- and I'm tired of it. Truth is we can do more to stop it. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the proliferation of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips have nothing to do with the problem is as crazy as saying the only reason it happened was because of mental health issues or cultural issues. It's never just one thing.

Typing on the run. Good catch. Doesn't change the fact you're letting a lobby group form your argument for you. Think of their motives. More guns = more money for them. They pass the buck to everyone but themselves. !@#$ the NRA. !@#$ their stupid plan. It won't work. It's never worked in the past and won't work in the future. It's time for a grownup conversation about gun control (not banning guns, control). And that simply won't happen so long as the NRA has a death grip on DC's nuts. Or yours. Think for yourself. You'll live longer.

... Hasan wasn't killed until there were over 20 casualties. And, the armed guard in the school (the whole plan by the NRA -- I mean GUN LOBBY) couldn't stop the slaughter. So, who's practicing creative writing here? Certainly not I.

Who's Mitt Romney?

Idiotic post of the year goes to....

Has nothing to do with what his profession was. Has everything to do with the ridiculously shortsighted (and false) statement that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Clearly did not work that way in Fort Hood or Columbine. But carry on.

Come on now, there were no "good guys with guns" at Fort Hood who were trained and prepared to stop such a thing. If there were more guns at Fort Hood, it never would have happened.

We'll keep it simple (mainly for my benefit) and use your argument: Did the regulation and legislation of seat belt laws have an impact on the number of auto fatalities in our nation?

Re-read the article. It supports exactly what I'm saying. Also, read through the enlightenment philosophies that shaped the men who created the constitution. The enlightenment was a direct rebuttal to the religious tyranny that savaged Europe for generations and stunted scientific and social development. To argue that the Founding Fathers were anything other than fearful of a religious state (be it Christian or otherwise) wielding power over the people is a fundamental perversion of history if not an outright misunderstanding of the principles which our republic was built upon.

We're in it. Huckabee's statements, depending on how you wish to interpret absolute idiocy, points the fingers at we the people who have removed God from schools. The people did no such thing. Religion has ZERO place in government. The founding fathers, the overwhelming majority of whom were NOT practicing Christians but instead Diests (if not out right atheists) feared religion's reach into government. Read Jefferson or Madison's works, then come back and talk about it.

No I am not.

Madcap, that's kinda silly. The reason you don't worry about car or plane accidents is because they are both heavily regulated industries. Cars and planes are safer and safer -- thanks to increases in safety regulation, production standards, and technology. There is a difference between repealing the 2nd Amendment and regulating ammunition capacities and weapon types. With your own argument, this type of regulation would lead to even a smaller risk of a "gun fueled massacre" just as it's done for auto and aircraft safety records, no?

Not God, but our legislation of keeping church and state separate. It's our fault because we follow the constitution and God hates the constitution.

That's a cop out. I believe in a higher power but it's the ultimate in man's arrogance to assume that we could ever "remove God" from ANYTHING.

Truth. Edit: wait, did I start a repeat thread? If so, apologies, I've been gone for a week or so.

For a minister, and a man I used to respect, he's managed to offend anyone who believes in God and atheists all in one quote.

"We've systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?" Mike Huckabee Seriously. Go !@#$ yourself.

6 months? That long???

It's kind of brilliant when you think about it. It preserves the original series and films for the hard core Trekkers (who are programmed in their DNA to be skeptical of any reboots/reimaginings of Roddenberry's source material if they don't outright hate it to begin with) while opening the door to a new generation of fans who used to think of Star Trek as the nerdy brother to Star Wars.

This is how I always took it. It's a parallel universe kinda deal, Spock with Uhura rather than Kirk, Kirk's dad being dead rather than alive -- it preserves the original universe and series while simultaneously rebooting the franchise and letting them retell stories in new ways.

What do you think he was watching over and over again while waiting to call the police? I know a few profilers who have weighed in on this one already, it's not a pretty picture.

:lol:

No one trusts a ginger. Nor should they.

That's nuts!

I may not be able to stand right now but that's because it's Friday!