Gideon35T

“logical fallacy of misleading vividness” - The odds of being involved in a nuclear incident are low and the odds of survival by hiding under kindling is low but the vivid perception of the results drives fear induced reaction. So, the question becomes less about if the fear driven response is valid and more a question of the quantity and quality of responses effects us. The same goes for the sacrificing of our rights for "security" and/or the illusion of it. At what point have we sacrificed too much? "Militarizing our schools I think is going to have a negative psychological affect on the young ones, and ultimately on society" - A very true statement but it's all about that cutoff level. What I find infinetely more scary is the realization that many of these things applied to schools AND society are not safety driven but agenda driven. Some interesting research is to look at how schools in Austria changed after the country voted to be annexed by Hitlers Germany. I'm NOT saying we have Nazi schools but I am saying that there's interesting parallels.

Only partially through but a very good read so far

Oh, I'm not imparting mutual exclusivity to the religion/morals things just pointing it out. Morals play a big part into security however. Even if not directly in regards to the individual performing the action. How someone is treated will effect how they respond. Bad morals on the side of everyone else (teachers included in some cases) are certainly a contributing factor. I see no discipline or courtesy in todays youong soldiers fresh out of school. Less and less inherant desire to protect/defend those around them. Etc etc etc --- I know it is not as black and white of a correlation but it's certainly true. I'd challenge any long time teacher to tell me that their students are better human beings today than they were years ago ...

"the implication that the problems today are due to a "lack of god in schools" is rather insulting." - That's not the implication at all actually. Reread the quote. Taking religion out of the equation I'm mostly concerned with the abandonment of morals. And, as you said, "Religion has many good morals in their story books" I'm still involved in eduction but it's the education of soldiers so it's not really fair for me to speak on public school items directly. From my perspective I CAN say that the quality of young soldiers coming out of our public educational system is shockingly poor. I shouldn't have to work so hard to get them to understand things they already are supposed to.

“For years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”― Anne Graham

We're failing because logic is no longer applied to situations. There also appears to be a theme where nobody wants to handle things on the lowest level possible anymore.

The problem is LIBERAL IDIOTS ! Virginia Del. Joe Morrissey, a Democrat hailing from the Richmond area, showed off the weapon while pushing for tighter gun-control laws ... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/virginia-lawmaker-brandishes-ak-47-house-floor-145619331--abc-news-politics.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container Follow the link and enlarge the picture. Bringing the gun into the building, felony. Brandishing a firearm, felony. Thumb on the trigger, bolt closed, magazine inserted, and safety OFF ! THESE are the people that are pushing for gun control. I bet Chuck would have grabbed that thing out of his hands and beat him with it. After clearing the weapon of course. I remember when I got flagged by another guy while on convoy. The front site post hit him square in the face.

JC - Well, we could look at Australia. They recently enacted sweeping gun laws and within years the government department which lead the changes admitted that it had ZERO effect on gun related crimes. More importantly, EVERY other class of crime has seen a minimum of a 20% increase in recent years. The most staggering being home invasions. A crime which was largely unknown in that country now has a firm niche in criminal society. Criminals know that they can bust down your door and not be shot. UK - oulaws guns ... stabbings skyrocket ... bans many pocket knives ... stabbings with kitchen knives skyrocket ... make all kitchen knives rounded on the end ... beatings with clubs are now increasing ... ... ... Removing a weapon type from a society just makes those who are still willing to commit violent crimes choose different weapons. And, shows a marked statistical increase in the net number of violent crimes. We can argue different countries definitions of violent crimes if you like but I'm sure we can both agree that stabbings and beatings with blunt object fit the bill regardless. Baseball bats still kill several times more in this country every year compared to firearms. Also, >50% of firearm deaths are suicides. The difference is even larger than it appears at a glance therefor. The FBI database also shows a nice correlation that is easily overlooked. >80% of gun crimes per capita are commited in cities which have a population >100,000.

"Assault Weapon" really is mostly cosmetic based. It's still a semi-auto tiny caliber rifle at the end of the day. I have an Archangel kit with several add-ons for Sarah to shoot. She feels comfortable with it. It's not more or less effective as a weapon because I put on an adjustable lightweight stock for my short 100 lb girlfriend, haha. But this is meaningless to a liberal because they don't care about actions or functionality (look at the politicians and spokepeople they favor) they only care about cosmetics (again, look at the politicians and spokespeople they favor).

There's about 50 variations on this pic and they are all AWESOME !

JC - Compare to Britain for instance. They have a substantially higher rate of violent crimes. You need to reference the countries own recording institutions. And avoid wikipedia ... If you want to take the easy route you can find some non-partisan youtube videos on the matter. Here's an example for ya - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Check the FBI statistics on violence of all types in this country. We've seen a massive decline over the past 50 years. Our rates per 100,000 also beat most other 1st would countries.

The purpose of this set of legislation has nothing to do with making people safer so it's no surprise that nothing proposed changes jack in that regard.

Obama just made his announcement. Check your favorite news outlet for some biased interpretation.

Many states and counties are passing/proposing similar legislation. Dozens of letters from police departments have been sent to the capitol stating that they wont enforce any such laws.

On the flip side of that -> http://www.naturalnews.com/038693_Firearms_Protection_Act_Texas_gun_control.html

Anyone else check out liberal logic 101 ? The facebook page or standalone site ?

Show me the words in the constitution which prohibit any particular type or style of firearms.

But are you pro constitution?

Almost an equal number of people die every year from falling as do from firearms. Tell your congressman that be need to ban all gravity! How dare ANY republican support gravity!

This made my day ... lol

Agreed. Forgive my simple english for the sake of internet threadery ... The TRUTH is that the 2nd Amendment was formulated for the people to defend themselves from a tyranical government. Immutable, no? Here's a quick giggle I made as I need to head home and don't really bother with this forum stuff unless it's during the day and during the week.

I haven't watched television in years, I don't listen to the radio for anything but music, and I don't follow any of the Rush Limbaughs or similar (for any side of any issue). This ofcourse wouldn't change the fact that I'm stating a fact and you're arguing a point that doesn't exist except in the minds of people who only follow the constitution where is agrees with them. If I'm one man and the other is a badguy trying to do harm to me or those I have to take care of? Then yeah, for sure. It doesn't matter if the other "man" is an individual badguy, a group, an organization, or the government.

The Supreme Court should be disbanded. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule constitutionality and be the final authority on the law. Somewhere along the line it became a political appointment and instantly became the antithesis of what it's there for. Hence why you have splits in the rulings. If something is constitutional (or not) then there is no "interpretation" to be made. Just a judgement one way or the other. Politics is what makes for the influence of personal opinion and yeilds such close splits. Furthermore, as nothing is quantified in the 2nd it is purely a principle based article. Formulated based upon a principle that the people should be armed AGAINST their government. One cannot "interpret" such a principle to mean anything more or less. Now, people can debate if a particluar firearm is reasonably protected under this, sure. However, one would therefor need to keep in mind the principle where we must be capable of fighting our own government or the entire ammendment becomes pointless.