S
starshiptrooper
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
You did admit that given that both of your counter-examples were agents of the state. The issue is whether or not the government in question attempted to deprive the citizens of their natural right to bear arms, the conditions necessary to forfeit this right are another dispute for another time.
Last edited:
I’m not a doctor. Children with ADHD exhibit certain behaviors at school that interfere with their learning. That is what I am told, as a teacher.
Beyond that, I don’t suggest, prescribe, or recommend. I’m not a doctor. However you want to term it is fine by me.
As I said, unless North is a doctor, he shouldn’t express opinions about drug usage. As for me as a teacher, occasionally I am asked to fill out documents about behaviors related to ADHD. I answer the questions based on my observations.
So, at school, it is about behaviors. Other than that, I let the doctors and parents decide.
Here is an example
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I shot expert in basic training too, it is not that hard. My drill instructors told us that in their experience, the best shots were usually guys who had never handled a rifle before, since they did not have any bad habits to unlearn.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is one point that does need addressing, for sure. There are so many contributors to this broken psyche, from entertainment and games, to families and religion. However, addressing the roots cannot substitute for changing the laws on gun ownership to demand only responsible ownership.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Yes words do matter. Which is why it is odd that you would obfusticate words and references with irrelevant info, such as some people call a miscarriage a “spontaneous abortion”. No one, where pro choice or pro life, gets confused about a miscarriage and an abortion when the word “abortion” is used.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is something that is easy for me, and in a way, makes me a rarity where I am. As I have not said, but may have been inferred, I am physically close to this last shooting, know the school, but no one who was killed. Pretty much everyone though knows someone who knows someone here, as it is close. Yet on the other hand, most I work with are firearm enthusiasts. There always Guns and Ammo mags laying around.
The claim that the NRA supports responsible ownership ignores the actual meaning of the word “responsible.” Why has this father, who owned guns and was therefore responsible for them, still free why other parents are burying their children? Sure, that too would be tragic for him. But at least he is alive which is something.
What is really wanted, not just with guns, but with life, is rights without responsibility. The right to own a gun, when followed by the decision to own a gun, should be followed by responsibility for all that gun is used for.
So, while I am for gun control in many forms, including registration, I am also a gun owner, proficient with my own firearm, even though I really do not like guns as a rule.
The claim that the NRA supports responsible ownership ignores the actual meaning of the word “responsible.” Why has this father, who owned guns and was therefore responsible for them, still free why other parents are burying their children? Sure, that too would be tragic for him. But at least he is alive which is something.
What is really wanted, not just with guns, but with life, is rights without responsibility. The right to own a gun, when followed by the decision to own a gun, should be followed by responsibility for all that gun is used for.
So, while I am for gun control in many forms, including registration, I am also a gun owner, proficient with my own firearm, even though I really do not like guns as a rule.
Last edited:
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
You need to stop replying to people with le epic and funny memes. It really doesn’t help your position, especially with the context of some of your other beliefs.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
There are plenty of people who do get confused about miscarriages, especially when politicians write stupid laws like this…
Failed Virginia bill on miscarriages reveals ignorance about women's health - MinnPost
A Q&A with Dr. Carrie Terrell, an ob-gyn and chief of staff at the University of Minnesota Medical Center, on miscarriages.
www.minnpost.com
I have nothing against simple statements as long as they are factually correct. However, I have little tolerance for falsehoods and even less for a litany of them. Distorting the truth for the sake of simplicity is why zero progress has been made in changing public opinion on abortion.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
Theo520
Guest
Not a very good survey by PEW for such a complex topic, it completely ignored the middle ground. Smells like agenda driven research.
The gallup poll is much better in that it offers a middle option. You can see how about half of respondents (by far largest response segment) believe in restrictions.
The Pew poll fails to inform because it failed to ask the question properly. It’s not an all or nothing issue to most people. Reducing the frequency of abortion is all about the middle ground.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The gallup poll is much better in that it offers a middle option. You can see how about half of respondents (by far largest response segment) believe in restrictions.
The Pew poll fails to inform because it failed to ask the question properly. It’s not an all or nothing issue to most people. Reducing the frequency of abortion is all about the middle ground.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Pew is not agenda driven, you just didn’t bother to click the link to the full results. No matter how you parse it, the two surveys tell the same story: Public attitudes regarding abortion have not changed in twenty years.
There has already been a steady decrease in the frequency of abortions since 1990, even though people have not changed their attitudes about it. This coincides with a drop in the birth rate as fewer women get pregnant due to increased access to more effective contraception.
My interest is in rehabilitating and promoting the Pro-Life brand. The goal is to foster a consistent ethic of life in the population. If you look at the chart supplied by Gallup, you will see that there has also been no change over time in the proportion of the population who say the are Pro-Life. That’s because right now, the label is just a proxy for anti-abortion and has no intrinsic meaning for most people beyond that.
People rightly perceive there is something inherently disfunctional in our society, and I blame the divide of Life & Death issues between the two political parties for it. I see Satan’s hand in this. A terrific illustration of the dissonance was when Pope Francis addressed Congress and all the GOP politicians stood and applauded when he spoke of protecting life in the womb, but we’re caught in an awkward position when he condemned the death penalty immediately after.
Promoting a consistent ethic of life is the Gospel we need to preach and Pro-Life should be our brand. Satan loves to divide and confuse. It is only by always carefully speaking the truth with clarity can we defeat him. We must avoid the temptation to make inaccurate arguments or allow him to muddy the waters.
T
Theo520
Guest
Luke you completely ignored the comments I made, but what’s new…
If you look at the survey data I provided, it also show that attitudes have largely remained unchanged, but it provides additional detail that leads to a very different conclusion than one draws from the inferior PEW survey.
The Gallup results show that the majority have always been conflicted on when abortion should be legal, with the people who want it legal in all circumstances as the persistent minority. The majority clearly want a compromise solution rather than all or nothing.
If you look at the survey data I provided, it also show that attitudes have largely remained unchanged, but it provides additional detail that leads to a very different conclusion than one draws from the inferior PEW survey.
The Gallup results show that the majority have always been conflicted on when abortion should be legal, with the people who want it legal in all circumstances as the persistent minority. The majority clearly want a compromise solution rather than all or nothing.
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I don’t see any difference in the survey results and it makes no difference to me if you prefer Gallup over Pew.
The middle ground can be claimed by both sides of the issue. Yes, they will condone restrictions on abortion. No, they will not allow it to become illegal, let alone criminalized.
However, the point I have been making is about healing the discord in the nation by promoting a consistent ethic of life. This is what should unite all Catholics, whether the issue is abortion, gun control, heathcare, the environment or immigration. The fact that it does not is Satan at work.
T
Theo520
Guest
No,
the middle ground is the middle ground, it won’t be claimed by either side.
THAT IS THE POINT of what a proper survey reveals. The middle ground has remained the majority since they’ve been checking. This explains why states have been making modest gains in reducing the allowed conditions but not dramatic gains.
The PEW survey indicates we have two diametrically opposing views fighting a win/lose battle. Real data shows the polar views on both sides remain a minority and that the majority definitely want compromise, they want some degree of restrictions but not to make it illegal.
the middle ground is the middle ground, it won’t be claimed by either side.
THAT IS THE POINT of what a proper survey reveals. The middle ground has remained the majority since they’ve been checking. This explains why states have been making modest gains in reducing the allowed conditions but not dramatic gains.
The PEW survey indicates we have two diametrically opposing views fighting a win/lose battle. Real data shows the polar views on both sides remain a minority and that the majority definitely want compromise, they want some degree of restrictions but not to make it illegal.
Last edited:
If you want to take and defend the leftist pro-abortion stance , that’s fine, but the fact is abortion is convenience. It is used as contraception after conception, Planned Parenthood’s notwithstanding.
The fact that AMnesty International claims it as a right does not change the fact.
Wow! I was wrong. Even though I was really speaking of the US, I was wrong not to consider that a leftist socialist state might do this. I stand corrected.
That is not coercion. That is protecting the life of a human being.
This is disingenuous, and a matter of word play. You clearly know we were talking about, and it wasn’t spontaneous abortion.
Again, more word play. While I am reminded again not to underestimate what leftists are capable of, even this is not comparable to abortion.
This, too is disingenuous. I was specific on this one - an American can legally take the life of another human being. I was obviously talking about a citizen, not the government.
The same applies to war, not to mention that in both instances it can be argued that the state is defending the citizenry, and I’m not even a bif fan of the death penalty. What is more, to compare a convicted murderer who is sentenced to death to a soon-to-be-born human being is ludicrous.
Yet you seem quite willing to cut the herd when they disagree with your determination of what is and isn’t Catholic.
Oh, I do. Just not your guest personally.
And I understand the Catholic approach. In fact, I’ve been told by some that I understand it pretty well. Maybe I’m not the one out of step.
While I tend to agree with the pope regarding the death penalty in most instances, using abortion and the death penalty as a comparative falls into trouble because it identifies a comparison between a heinous felon and an innocent soon-to-be-born human being.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Possibly.
And yet Oliver North, the new president of the NRA, made a bunch of money endorsing violent video games (Call of Duty) and serving as a consultant to the makers of such games.
So one would think the NRA is going to have to get rid of North, or violent video games, or that will have to stop being a talking point for gun rights advocates.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t defend the NRA. They are soft on gun rights.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t know anything about the others, but I just read that the Santa Fe killer used a shotgun and pistol. No AR-15.
I believe the Sandy Hook killer had three other weapons in addition to an AR-15 and killed his mother with a bolt action .22.
The only advantage an AR-15 has over any other semi-automatic rifle is that it’s easier to carry than most. What persuades you that if AR-15s were banned, the killers wouldn’t just go to a different rifle or pistols?
And if you ban all rifles and pistols, why do you think they wouldn’t use explosives like Timothy McVey and the Tsarnaevs did and the Santa Fe killer apparently thought to do but failed?
I believe the Sandy Hook killer had three other weapons in addition to an AR-15 and killed his mother with a bolt action .22.
The only advantage an AR-15 has over any other semi-automatic rifle is that it’s easier to carry than most. What persuades you that if AR-15s were banned, the killers wouldn’t just go to a different rifle or pistols?
And if you ban all rifles and pistols, why do you think they wouldn’t use explosives like Timothy McVey and the Tsarnaevs did and the Santa Fe killer apparently thought to do but failed?
- Status