My money's on joe bloe

Ok, maybe it would be easier to understand if instead of saying "going to hell" we said "going to California" in an economic sense.

California really is hell, in a manner of speaking. It's beautiful, the weather is nice, but inside it is crumbling due to lies, greed and corruption, and will likely be the first state to declare bankruptcy.

California is a beautiful facade on a corrupt, miserable system. In short. Hell. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Or going to Wichita it hot as hell there in the summer.(worked there)

Ok, maybe it would be easier to understand if instead of saying "going to hell" we said "going to California" in an economic sense.

California really is hell, in a manner of speaking. It's beautiful, the weather is nice, but inside it is crumbling due to lies, greed and corruption, and will likely be the first state to declare bankruptcy.

California is a beautiful facade on a corrupt, miserable system. In short. Hell. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's a sad state of affairs when California is used as a metaphor for Hell. A few decades ago, it would have been a metaphor for Heaven. The liberals have turned Heaven into Hell. The Okies are loading up and going back to Oklahoma to try and find work.

What does all this have to do with Alex Jones?

Oh wait, we're talking crackpot theories. I get it.

But without guns people would not have such a very easy opportunity to kill . . . let me ask you, how do you kill and wound so many people without a gun? Throw them into the Grand Canyon? Or throw them all of the highest building in Wichita? . . . if you have a real answer to that. Originally Posted by waverunner234

On 9-11, 19 men - armed only with box cutters - managed to kill 2,976 innocent people: that's approximately 157 victims for each murderer.

No I don't think everyone should be allowed to have a gun; not if your crazy, not if you're a convicted felon. Not every kind of gun should be legal. There are laws against machine guns, that seems reaonable to me.

I have no problem with gays being allowed to have civil unions. I'm against same sex marriage, because it encourages a life style that is not healthy and is detrimental to the culture. There has to be a reason, that in ten thousand years of recorded human history, same sex marriage has never been allowed by any culture.

I'm not against abortion in every case. Abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the mother's life seems reasonable to me. I am against partial birth abortion in all cases; there is never a legitimate therapeutic reason for partial birth abortion. Roe vs Wade should be overturned. It was never a legitimate ruling. Overturning Roe vs Wade would not end abortion. It would simply let each state make their own laws, as the Constitution requires.

I have no problem with physician assisted suicide. In some cases, when a person is near the end of life, and is in severe pain that can't be adequately controlled with medication, physician assisted suicide should be legal. It seems barbaric to force someone to endure severe pain for no reason.

I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs. It does seem reasonable to legalize marijuana. It makes more sense than filling our prisons with nonviolent offenders. Depending on what mood I'm in, some days I think it might be better to just legalize everything, and let people take whatever they want. If you're stupid enough to destroy yourself with drugs, so be it. Originally Posted by joe bloe

+1 Pretty much my sentiments, verbatim.

On 9-11, 19 men - armed only with box cutters - managed to kill 2,976 innocent people: that's approximately 157 victims for each murderer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Exactly. I started to use that example. They essentially, took down the World Trade center with box cutters, no guns.

+1 Pretty much my sentiments, verbatim.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But how can you be a conservative, with such nuanced complex views? I thought you guys were just knee jerk, gun totin' ,Bible thumpin' ,racist, homophobic, inbred mouth breathers. I'm confused.

But how can you be a conservative, with such nuanced complex views? I thought you guys were just knee jerk, gun totin' ,Bible thumpin' ,racist, homophobic, inbred mouth breathers. I'm confused. Originally Posted by joe bloe

sounds like you nailed IB to the T

"Eye for an eye" is old testiment. We are living in the new testiment where the other cheek is turned. Then again, Jesus said to render onto Ceasar that which is Ceasars which could describe criminal law. When we write laws we write in a vacuum of calmness and a clear mind. What are we trying to achieve? How do we punish? Can we rehabilitate? What is fair and equitable? The gun grabbing crowd wants for this purpose to operate in a raw, emotional state. People are dead! Killed by a gun! We have to ban guns!!! Imagine if all other crime was treated the same way. We go to the parents of a teenage daughter who has just been raped and murdered. We ask them what kind of punishment do they want for the perp? It would probably be quite colorful, painful, and final. That is not what we do in this country. We craft laws with cool calmness. Just another case of liberal hypocrisy.

sounds like you nailed IB to the T Originally Posted by CJ7

The "sounds" you hear, CBJ7, are only imaginary voices in your delusion filled mind.

Exactly. I started to use that example. They essentially, took down the World Trade center with box cutters, no guns. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Yes. And it marks the progression that liberals blindly ignore. Outlawing guns only changes the weapon but does not prevent the crime.

"Eye for an eye" is old testiment. We are living in the new testiment where the other cheek is turned. Then again, Jesus said to render onto Ceasar that which is Ceasars which could describe criminal law. When we write laws we write in a vacuum of calmness and a clear mind. What are we trying to achieve? How do we punish? Can we rehabilitate? What is fair and equitable? The gun grabbing crowd wants for this purpose to operate in a raw, emotional state. People are dead! Killed by a gun! We have to ban guns!!! Imagine if all other crime was treated the same way. We go to the parents of a teenage daughter who has just been raped and murdered. We ask them what kind of punishment do they want for the perp? It would probably be quite colorful, painful, and final. That is not what we do in this country. We craft laws with cool calmness. Just another case of liberal hypocrisy. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Ten Commandments are also old testament and they're literally engraved in stone in the Supreme Court building. The eye for an eye passage is usually interpreted as advocating draconian barbaric punishment. I've always considered it to simply mean, as I posted earlier, a requirement for punishment that is based on the severity of the crime. A minor crime gets a minor punishment. A major crime gets a major punishment.

From AmericanVision.Org:

As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in his majority opinion of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court Chamber in which cases related to religion are heard "is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments."[6] State courtrooms and government buildings across our land have housed similar displays for decades without any legal challenge. "In fact, the Ten Commandments are more easily found in America’s government buildings than in her religious buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America’s civil laws."

http://americanvision.org/1473/ten-c...supreme-court/

On 9-11, 19 men - armed only with box cutters - managed to kill 2,976 innocent people: that's approximately 157 victims for each murderer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is the point you're trying to make that you don't need guns to protect yourself?

On 9-11, 19 men - armed only with box cutters - managed to kill 2,976 innocent people: that's approximately 157 victims for each murderer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yea and then we did a knee jerk reaction and went to war with Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Guns actually had something to do with the Batman movie killing., not that I agree with banning guns.

So I was not for the knee jerk 6 degree of seperation Bush pulled to get us into Iraq, nor am I for banning guns.

That is pretty damn linear nevergivesitathought! You listening old man? Thats what I thought...(Sorry IB, had a Cool Hand Luke moment)

Is the point you're trying to make that you don't need guns to protect yourself? Originally Posted by Doove

I confess to owning guns more than a few too ..

95% are collectables
4% are or were used as sporting guns .. target/hunting etc

1% for protecting myself from dumbasses with boxcutters

and if some idiot really screws with me I'll break out my Bear or Bowtech and turn him into a pin cushion