Paul's ideas. Like a Zen koan, people can spend all day debating what they mean. Parables should NEVER be quoted out of context. It's intellectually indefensible. Stay out of the nasty personal stuff.
The big Senate vote is coming up later today. Unfortunately, all the bills are expected to fail. Washington is going to rule once again that our ways of dealing with guns are just fine the way they are; a big success story, apparently. :wall:
Not at this time. You used it to oversimplify the situation (christianity promotes peace, islam the opposite). A bit disappointing...
I don't see anything wrong with summarizing, looking at the big picture. A religion tends to be defined in a very significant way by its most recent holy text. Samantha's summary shows very clearly that we're talking about two religions that are headed in opposite directions. That's a rational explanation for what we're seeing going on in the world. Of course there are factions that are not following these trends. Hardly ever does a faction within a religion ever completely die out. We still have Seventh Day Adventists around, insisting on following Peter's admonitions to follow OT law; parts of it, anyway.
Most people don't even wanna talk about their concerns for the mass migration of refugees flooding their countries for fear of being called a racist.
The first of today's gun bills is being voted on right now. Not only are all of them expected to be voted down, but they're projected to be defeated by overwhelming margins. That sends the message to America that both political parties are extremely satisfied with our current gun laws, in spite of the shitty results we're getting. :wall: We're probably lucky that they aren't voting to reduce restrictions.
TPTB wanted to play down the fact that the shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS. What bullshit. SMH Attorney General Loretta Lynch's decision to release only the partial transcript created a minor firestorm. "Selectively editing this transcript is preposterous," Ryan said in a statement. "We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS. We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why." Authorities also defended the decision, saying it was meant to avoid lending credence to terrorist leaders. "We're not going to propagate their rhetoric, their violent rhetoric," FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper said.http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ But after news organizations and public officials like Republican House Leader Paul Ryan complained, the agency released the full, unredacted transcript of the call in the afternoon.
Go figure, The Dept. of Justice censored the word "Allah" from the FBI transcripts of Orlando shooting, and replaced it with "God"
That's been corrected due to public outcry. Lynch must be staring at the wall right now thinking, "wtf have I gotten myself into?" Especially coming from the Obama admin. throwing her under the buss.
Bigots and morons rule the world. This country needs Trump to be president. So people finally understand.
6 I think it was clear because others seem to have understood (thank you Asmo) your reply to me seems to indicate that you don’t really have any rational or reasonable counter argument. The thing is that it’s not black and white, it not white hats and black hats, good people with guns and bad people with guns it just people with guns and sometimes people act well and sometimes not, sometimes they are responsible other times not. Then add that differing people can be sensible or responsible to differing degrees. What is being pointed out is that there is very little to stop the reckless or irresponsible from obtaining a gun, even those that promote responsible gun ownership can act irresponsibly on occasions as the resent case of the pro-gun mother shot by her own son highlighted. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html Now add to occasional lapses that if you put people under stress (or add such things as alcohol) they are very likely to act irresponsibly - as mentioned domestic disputes can be very emotionally charged and can cause irresponsible actions (verbal and even physical abuse) add guns to that and it can end in tragedy. When an abusive partner has access to firearms, statistics show that domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly. According to research published in the American Journal of Public Health, the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. More than half of women murdered with guns are killed by family members or intimate partners. http://www.thehotline.org/resources/firearms-dv/ I’m pro gun control because I don't just want to limit the possibility of criminals getting hold of guns but also the irresponsible I mean you talk of ‘stories of reckless idiocy’ but the fact is that in the US there seems to be little in the way of reckless idiots getting possession of a gun. [Edit] people like this - I think transient alcoholics are terrible people so I went to a detox center and shot two of them. My stepdaughter’s boyfriend came over to see her. I don’t like him, so I pointed my gun at im to scare him away. He dared me to shoot him, so I did. I tried to borrow my sister’s boyfriend’s gasoline can without permission. He got mad about it, so I shot him. The bartender put Clamato in my beer when I wanted tomato juice, so I shot him and his dog. Rather than let my ex-wife win custody, I shot my own daughter to death. After a day painting condos, my co-worker and I argued about whose equipment was whose. So I shot him. My girlfriend got into a fight with her relatives over control of the TV. So I shot some of them for her.
Ohio gun shop owner fatally shot while teaching concealed carry class.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-ohio-gun-shop-owner-killed-20160619-story.html
Yep we can do this back and forth 'til the cows come home. It doesn't matter what people say, you'll always brush everything off as "not rational" or "reasonable." So I'm not gonna waste my time with this. Go chalk up another tally mark on your "Internet arguments I won" scoreboard. Maybe we should ban alcohol to prevent violence. Oh wait a minute.... As the old saying goes, "When two men agree on everything, you can guarantee only one of them is doing all the thinking."
I love the addendum. Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they lose their cool and shoot someone in a crime of passion, or until they leave a gun within reach of their kids and their kid shoots someone. I have a hard time swallowing the responsible gun owner argument for that reason. My brother in law is a gun enthusiast and a self described "responsible gun owner" but when we were visiting at their house one weekend he left a loaded gun within reach of my toddler until I realized it and asked him to put it up. So it appears he is not that responsible after all.
John Lewis is leading a sit-in for gun control on the floor of the US House! The old man has still got it! The House is considered by political analysts to be a tougher place to get a gun regulation bill passed than the Senate, but at least somebody is making a serious effort. If Lewis and his supporters force a vote, at least voters in November can see exactly where all their representatives stand on the issue. With somewhere between 85 and 90% of Americans wanting some sort of enhanced gun controls and neither house of Congress being willing to lift a finger to improve anything, it's time for the voters to start sending some people home.
This an amazing thing to watch on TV... chaos on the floor of the US House of Representatives. This never happens. Paul Ryan is trying to conduct normal business over the noise. He could call in security people to remove the sit-in participants, but he doesn't have the guts to order anyone to drag John Lewis out of a protest, knowing that cell phone video will end up online. Unlike a Senate filibuster, which requires someone to stand up and talk without a bathroom break for the entire length of time, this sit-in could go on for a very long time. Individuals can come and go as they please, for meal breaks or whatever, as long as enough people are left down front to disrupt normal operations. Historians can't find a similar incident anywhere in US history. The passion and energy being displayed by these legislators does not fit the standard bureaucratic public image of congress.
