tvashtarkatena

Evangelical religions rely completely on restricting and filtering information, just like any other cult. Once information is properly stamped with the Mark of the Beast by the asset holders of the cult, the sheep won't go there. As the new happiness study shows, we are, after all, herd animals.

One person's offensive is another's truth. That's free speech for ya. It's a great country. Anyway, the sign was stolen and delivered to Ichabod Crane, a country/western radio host, who will likely employ it for his own purposes. It's just another harbinger of the End Times.

I wouldn't look to evangelicals for an original or intellectually coherent message.

Of course, we'd also have to take over a large part of Pakistan, too. Which ain't gonna happen. We're fucked. Thanks, Britain! What a gift that country was to the world! Concentrating the world's biggest assholes into one area: awesome idea.

Maybe with my man Obama in the White House we can finally end our Iraqi adventure travel vacation and do something useful in Afghanistan.

Oh wait, the Taliban's successfully doing just that.

you guys don't get it - no one's trying to cut your cock off - more like telling you ya can't fuck the little baby-girls w/ it and trying to set up some rules that keep that from happening where just a bunch a dumb rednecks, we just want our guns. anyway, more useless history for u to teach with guns on the table. "No guns at the table!" What movie was that from, cockless ones? Also, DO NOT, for your own health and safety, attempt to argue history with Ivan. That would be like going up against the largest military in the world without the French.

There are posters here who may be able to call in an air strike for you.

This reinforces the article I just read in the New Yorker about Christian teen sexual attitudes. Evangelical teens are the most sexually active group in the country. Surprise surprise, they also have the highest teen pregnancy rate. At least these two use pro, unlike many other Pro Life thumpers. Whatever happened to saving yourself for Jebus?

I agree here. I support eliminating federally licenses gun dealers without a legitimate storefront. I support enforcing existing regulationsn on those dealers (they're not enforced to any degree today). But mostly I don't give a shit about guns; the root of the problem is broken families and poor parenting. Policies that address those issues are the key to reducing crime rates, IMO, in addition to a complete top to bottom reform of the War On Drugs . And let's not forget that a huge percentage of guns deaths are suicides, cases of domestic violence, and childhood accidents. More readily available education and treatment for depression might help. Health care plans that are required to cover this might help. Early education on navigating relationships in a positive way might help (currently, we have pretty much zero in this department). Stricter laws requiring gun owners to lock up their weapons might help (and prosecuting parents who whose children are killed or injured as a result of their negligence would go a long way towards 'deterrence'. Community policing has helped somewhat, as well, apparently. although we can't expect police to be the garbage men for all our problems.

The whole gun argument is based on this little jewel: "An armed society is a polite society" Any time someone mentions that more guns might just mean more crazy, violent people with guns, which just might mean more people just might get shot, someone counters OH, well, if you then your guns/ammo can still be stolen and used in a crime. So THAT's not a solution. So...let's have way more guns/ammo out there to be stolen? OK.

Dood, after the chicken verde enchiladas I had last night, my 'back yard' could keep NYC lit for a year.

And no one is suggesting that. Complex ideas are often not completely solvable, but they can be mitigated by taking steps in the proper direction. Like having tracealbe ammo, for example.

I wouldn't trust you to find your way out of a paper bag. Yes, I trust Obama to be a better president than Tracy the Mom or Jeanette the EMT. That is correct.

The problems with this line of reasoning also apply to your examples of gun violence in other countries. And I always frame these examples solely for illustrative purposes to counter 'conventional wisdom', without trying to make ridiculous causal links between, say, legislation in the 60's and specific events nearly a half century later.

Look your basic argument is that if everybody had a gun, then no one would use them for crimes, right? Unfortunately, that 'everyone' includes the criminally insane, as well as just the criminal. This also assumes that criminals would be deterred by the fear of being shot. Um...I think the pervasiveness of gang violence kind of counters that one. In addition, it assumes that a critical mass of potential victims, women by your implication, will carry guns. Ever talk to many women? Just a little hint: guns are a guy thing, dude. Kind of like talking about your poo. So no critical mass will ever be possible for this 'deterrent' effect, which is probably mythical anyway, considering the experience of other countries like S.A., to have an effect. Well, women and everyone else CAN carry guns here, yet America still boasts one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, particularly the 1st world. It think it's being proven as we speak that the key to lowering the crime rate, which is after all, the real issue here, is to support policies that healthier parenting and enable people to live above the poverty line and have opportunities to improve their station in life. Thanks for voting for Bush twice, BTW. Discussing the inentions of the "Founding Fathers", those all-wise, infallible SuperBeings, doesn't fly either. Who the fuck cares? If it were up to the original ideas of the Founding Fathers, congress would vote in our president, not us. We'd still be slave owners. Only white male landowners would be able to vote...and on and on....

Chastity belts are coming back eh? Ooooooooooo. I love a challenge. You should set one of these out at the entryway in case of a late night 'family' visit.

I like "trashtalkingtina"

Then again you could wake up one morning and find that you've been transformed into a cockroach.

UM...my ass is already pretty raw from the idiot dumbshits like you voted in twice there, Bill.

Had you raped and shot your wife prior to marriage, you would not have had this issue. I think "Do not marry insane people" is probably the take away here, no? Some of us choose to nip certain problems at the bud, so that we do not have to shoot our way out of them later.

Bill's implication: It WILL happen here if we restrict guns because: a) The events in Mexico happened AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE RESTRICTION OF GUN OWNERSHIP IN !968. OF COURSE, THERE WAS A LONG GESTATION PERIOD....and b) the USA is EXACTLY LIKE MEXICO and c) if two countries are exactly alike then the same type of policy will produce EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT. d) (My personal favorite) The 1968 gun law made the following (not concurrent) generation of Juarezian's EXTRA HORNY. DENYING AGING FATHERS THE RIGHT TO FREELY OWN GUNS DRIVES SONS TO RAPE AND MURDER. This kind of wisdom is essential for making voting wisely. Consider Bill's choice for president, for example.

Well, not really. Join ownership includes only what you acquire together after marriage. If you own a car or a house or a pet mammoth beforehand, it remains 100% yours if you still continue to pay it off in full after the nuptials. That is, if you're wife isn't a stay at home housewife/mom, or she doesn't help with any of the payments on your stuff. Then things can get more complicated. So don't worry. If you get some chick preggers, she can't touch your beer bottle collection or Bjork boxset.

Shouldn't you be preparing for fatherhood, or was that the other kid....

You've just unwilling funded the bail out of the climbing porn industry.