Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ubiquitin, ask a Muslim.
I personally believe that killing an innocent person is worse than not convicting a guilty one.
If you see this happening, you can assume it’s not a Jew.
The U.S. has executed many innocent people, so it can’t be trusted.
The custom is that women don’t wear garments that require tzitzis.
Laskern, Muslim terrorism is a different type of terrorism. Radical Islamic groups have created a whole category. If there were chas v’shalom an equivalent Jewish group, “Jewish terrorism” would be the right term.
The fact that people like them is a cost to banning them, but that’s not why I think drugs should be legal.
It’s best to have a balance of the two parties. Like that they can’t do most of the things on their party platforms.
It is only natural for a person to be biased toward his own opinion.
Guns have value to some people.
Neville, not everyone agrees that drugs are bad, and there needs to be a reason for something to be illegal, not the other way around. Also, you are a person who doesn’t value guns. The fact that certain people value guns means that taking away the guns from them would be taking away something they value, which is a cost you have to take into account.
Politicians in general are arrogant, lying gamblers.
To a certain extent, truly sheltering is impossible, and by exposing your children to the world in a controlled manner, you can prevent them from discovering it from other sources.
Don’t worry, they don’t have guns.
Laskern, that is only true if you are taxing the rich more.
If no cat has two tails, and a cat has one more tail than no cat, does a cat have three tails?
Coffee addict, Oskar Schindler is considered good by many people.
All generalizations are bad.
Neville, the laws can be divided into laws that are laws because the thing itself is bad, and laws that are laws due to a secondary reason, such as a safety issue.
Then why are there rules against carrying knife type weapons on the street when you can buy a knife at the corner store?
It is a legal question. There is a right to bear arms, but there is no right to breakfast cereal. Is there a right to not be discriminated against for bearing arms, or can the government make laws depriving gun owners of breakfast cereal privileges, just as an example?
Legal question: Would it violate people’s rights if it became illegal for gun owners to consume commercially produced breakfast cereals?
No, some people are both atheist and Buddhist.
Some atheists are religious.
What about religious atheists?
StuartW, one of the most common types of gun accident is human error. The gun can’t tell if you mean it when you shoot, and it can’t tell if someone else takes the gun.
Coffee addict, many don’t hold that way.
I like mocking Obama and Trump, but I do miss the Bush days when it was standard to compare the president to a monkey with the same first name as him.
Neville, you’re confusing freedom with democracy. Ubiquitin, I personally don’t believe that people should typically own weapons of war, including certain guns. However, a common interpretation of the Second Amendment allows only weapons of war, because weapons designed for personal self defense or for general security are not needed in a militia.
Doctors are also dangerous, but the difference is that you probably respect your neighbor’s doctor as much as your own, whereas you believe that all religions other than your own are false. If doctors were like religion in that everyone believed that everyone else’s was invalid, there would be a lot of problems.
Have the women carry the guns, it’s less bitul Torah that way.
The most important thing isn’t to be a good shot. It’s to be good at not having the gun go off accidentally.
Religion does sometimes lead people to kill.
How am I a Constitutionist? I don’t agree with the opinions of the framers of the Constitution. I just don’t believe that it is safe to repeal one particular part of it. We need a whole new one.
It doesn’t take more than one person to do such a thing. One is not proof of any others.
A pseudo-democratic government that allows its people too much freedom is better than one that chooses safety over freedom.
People will always be able to obtain lethal weapons.
Hunting is not a religion, but that’s not the point. Why should religion be protected when so few people are religious?
The Constitution doesn’t dictate opinion, but it is a reality. You don’t care about it, but it doesn’t care about you either, and it is currently in charge. Violating it would cause a civil war, and that would be ugly.
Jackk, very few conspiracy theorist conservatives actually hate liberals.
No, they should be allowed for people who are approved by the state and are in the state’s well regulated militia.
There is no need to limit the First Amendment because those “limits” are already there. The First Amendment does not state “Freedom of speech is absolute and must not be interfered with by anyone”, and no serious legal body interprets it as such. If people say that the First Amendment is in the way, they are just making excuses.
Also, how many car accidents will it take until you allow hunting again?
It requires proof that taking away the guns will actually help. There isn’t really evidence to support that.
It’s unconstitutional and you don’t want to let that genie out of the bottle.
Gadolhadorah, your comment is evidence that the conspiracy theory might not be so crazy. If it hadn’t been that guy, it could have been you.