Gun Rights

[Galla-]

Take a look at the lower chart.
Interesting - crime per 100,000 people has gone up by about 1,500 instances since 1960. Violent crime has skyrocketed (admittedly except for murder - as of 2009, the murder rate per 100,000 people was down by .1 since 1960.)!!!

Take a look at how gun control has been going since then.
Hey, look - more gun control, and yet crime has gone up! How could that be? Shouldn't gun control magically prevent violent crime when it is passed?

So true.

Armed citizens prevent crime.

[President Mathias]

Take a look at the lower chart.
Interesting - crime per 100,000 people has gone up by about 1,500 instances since 1960. Violent crime has skyrocketed (admittedly except for murder - as of 2009, the murder rate per 100,000 people was down by .1 since 1960.)!!!

Take a look at how gun control has been going since then.
Hey, look - more gun control, and yet crime has gone up! How could that be? Shouldn't gun control magically prevent violent crime when it is passed?

So true.

Armed citizens prevent crime.

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

[Galla-]

So true.

Armed citizens prevent crime.

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

No it doesn't.

Not at all.

I read it from cover to cover and wanted to burn it.

[Separatist Peoples]

So true.

Armed citizens prevent crime.

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

I suppose secular moral stories would go over better.

I'd be against such a measure, regardless. Morals start at home. But, given our social climate, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea, on second thought...at least it would give kids a basic understanding of religious texts. I know too many atheists that bash Christianity mercilessly with absolutely no understanding of what they are bashing. Its quite fun to point out their mistakes on the matter...

But yes, an armed citizenry is always a pleasant deterrent to crime.

[President Mathias]

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

No it doesn't.

Not at all.

I read it from cover to cover and wanted to burn it.

Hypocrite. You left-wingers have a hissyfit when a couple soldiers burn the Koran, but you want to burn the bible? The ten commandments are not good morals?

5-10 (1-4 are basically follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.)

5- Honour thy mother and father
6- Do not Murder
7- Do not commit adultery
8- Do not steal
9- Do not lie
10- Do not covet

How are those not good morals?

[Maroza]

No it doesn't.

Not at all.

I read it from cover to cover and wanted to burn it.

Hypocrite. You left-wingers have a hissyfit when a couple soldiers burn the Koran, but you want to burn the bible? The ten commandments are not good morals?

5-10 (1-4 are basically follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.)

5- Honour thy mother and father
6- Do not Murder
7- Do not commit adultery
8- Do not steal
9- Do not lie
10- Do not covet

How are those not good morals?

They support 1-5 which says there is a god. Hell I don't know.

[President Mathias]

Hypocrite. You left-wingers have a hissyfit when a couple soldiers burn the Koran, but you want to burn the bible? The ten commandments are not good morals?

5-10 (1-4 are basically follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.)

5- Honour thy mother and father
6- Do not Murder
7- Do not commit adultery
8- Do not steal
9- Do not lie
10- Do not covet

How are those not good morals?

They support 1-5 which says there is a god. Hell I don't know.

They? I don't quite get what your saying. I guess you don't either as indicated by "Hell, I don't know."

[Galla-]

No it doesn't.

Not at all.

I read it from cover to cover and wanted to burn it.

Hypocrite. You left-wingers have a hissyfit when a couple soldiers burn the Koran, but you want to burn the bible? The ten commandments are not good morals?

5-10 (1-4 are basically follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.)

5- Honour thy mother and father
6- Do not Murder
7- Do not commit adultery
8- Do not steal
9- Do not lie
10- Do not covet

How are those not good morals?

The Ten Commandments are not the morals portrayed in the Bible.

You forgot:

1) Kill all homosexuals by stoning.
2) Kill the woman who lies an adulterer, stone them both. (rofl monogamy)
3) Do not wear clothes of multiple threads, lest you be stoned to death.
4) Do not eat shellfish or pork, lest you be stoned to death.
5) Kill all witches with stones.
6) Kill all "pagans" by stoning.
7) Do not cut your hair. Ever. Or else die, I'm sure.
Do not grow multiple crops in the same field.
9) If a man sleeps with his mother, burn them. (Yeah we get it, kill everyone who violates evolutionary law because this is 700 C.E.)
10) Anyone who blasphemes god shall be stoned.

etc.etc.

Now Deuteronomy:

1) If your own family tries to convert you from god, kill them.
2) If another city worships a "false god", kill them all.
3) Kill anyone with a religion other than Christianity, etc.

Also Numbers trhows in how rape of virgins is perfectly acceptable if you do it in the name of god. So is murder.

Yeah yeah, "do not kill" is bullshit.

I could go. I really could. The Bible is a terrible book of morals, like any other religious book. It's also cute how you try to pin me to your stereotypical, false definition of a "left-winger", rofl.

Just rofl.

[President Mathias]

Hypocrite. You left-wingers have a hissyfit when a couple soldiers burn the Koran, but you want to burn the bible? The ten commandments are not good morals?

5-10 (1-4 are basically follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.)

5- Honour thy mother and father
6- Do not Murder
7- Do not commit adultery
8- Do not steal
9- Do not lie
10- Do not covet

How are those not good morals?

The Ten Commandments are not the morals portrayed in the Bible.

You forgot:

1) Kill all homosexuals by stoning.
2) Kill the woman who lies an adulterer, stone them both. (rofl monogamy)
3) Do not wear clothes of multiple threads, lest you be stoned to death.
4) Do not eat shellfish or pork, lest you be stoned to death.
5) Kill all witches with stones.
6) Kill all "pagans" by stoning.
7) Do not cut your hair. Ever. Or else die, I'm sure.
Do not grow multiple crops in the same field.
9) If a man sleeps with his mother, burn them. (Yeah we get it, kill everyone who violates evolutionary law because this is 700 C.E.)
10) Anyone who blasphemes god shall be stoned.

etc.etc.

Now Deuteronomy:

1) If your own family tries to convert you from god, kill them.
2) If another city worships a "false god", kill them all.
3) Kill anyone with a religion other than Christianity, etc.

Also Numbers trhows in how rape of virgins is perfectly acceptable if you do it in the name of god. So is murder.

Yeah yeah, "do not kill" is bullshit.

I could go. I really could. The Bible is a terrible book of morals, like any other religious book. It's also cute how you try to pin me to your stereotypical, false definition of a "left-winger", rofl.

Just rofl.

What are you reading the Jewish Torah?

[Galla-]

The Ten Commandments are not the morals portrayed in the Bible.

You forgot:

1) Kill all homosexuals by stoning.
2) Kill the woman who lies an adulterer, stone them both. (rofl monogamy)
3) Do not wear clothes of multiple threads, lest you be stoned to death.
4) Do not eat shellfish or pork, lest you be stoned to death.
5) Kill all witches with stones.
6) Kill all "pagans" by stoning.
7) Do not cut your hair. Ever. Or else die, I'm sure.
Do not grow multiple crops in the same field.
9) If a man sleeps with his mother, burn them. (Yeah we get it, kill everyone who violates evolutionary law because this is 700 C.E.)
10) Anyone who blasphemes god shall be stoned.

etc.etc.

Now Deuteronomy:

1) If your own family tries to convert you from god, kill them.
2) If another city worships a "false god", kill them all.
3) Kill anyone with a religion other than Christianity, etc.

Also Numbers trhows in how rape of virgins is perfectly acceptable if you do it in the name of god. So is murder.

Yeah yeah, "do not kill" is bullshit.

I could go. I really could. The Bible is a terrible book of morals, like any other religious book. It's also cute how you try to pin me to your stereotypical, false definition of a "left-winger", rofl.

Just rofl.

What are you reading the Jewish Torah?

It's called the Old Testament.

And NT doesn't look much better.

I got through Matthew a long time ago, never picked it back up. Apparently every time your child talks back, he/she should be beaten to death. Let's not forget NT also supports stoning of queers, heretics, people who have the absolute gall to work on a Sunday, and etc.

FWIW, Jesus approved of Leviticus and etc. in Matthew.

[Tsal-Kar]

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

I suppose secular moral stories would go over better.

I'd be against such a measure, regardless. Morals start at home. But, given our social climate, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea, on second thought...at least it would give kids a basic understanding of religious texts. I know too many atheists that bash Christianity mercilessly with absolutely no understanding of what they are bashing. Its quite fun to point out their mistakes on the matter...

But yes, an armed citizenry is always a pleasant deterrent to crime.

This is all looking like an attempt to put a state religion in place... Not cool. There are as many, if not more, Christians bashing atheists as the reverse. I was raised Catholic, chose to be agnostic, and I think that the Bible has some great moral lessons to it (although I never really read it much). I also think it has some horrible moral lessons to it. Religion is no better - or worse - a moral teacher than what a non-religious person would get. We learn many of the same lessons at school, in everyday life, and from our parents. I see no reason to ban religion, or discriminate against it - it is simply the attempts of man to understand the world around us. Atheism is the same, just with a less supernatural slant to it. Neither is inherently evil or good, and to say otherwise is just silly.

As far as arming the people goes, even Gandhi was in favor of it. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." He obviously preferred peaceful protest to violent revolution, but between doing nothing and revolting, he would have chosen the revolt - I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour

[President Mathias]

I suppose secular moral stories would go over better.

I'd be against such a measure, regardless. Morals start at home. But, given our social climate, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea, on second thought...at least it would give kids a basic understanding of religious texts. I know too many atheists that bash Christianity mercilessly with absolutely no understanding of what they are bashing. Its quite fun to point out their mistakes on the matter...

But yes, an armed citizenry is always a pleasant deterrent to crime.

This is all looking like an attempt to put a state religion in place... Not cool. There are as many, if not more, Christians bashing atheists as the reverse. I was raised Catholic, chose to be agnostic, and I think that the Bible has some great moral lessons to it (although I never really read it much). I also think it has some horrible moral lessons to it. Religion is no better - or worse - a moral teacher than what a non-religious person would get. We learn many of the same lessons at school, in everyday life, and from our parents. I see no reason to ban religion, or discriminate against it - it is simply the attempts of man to understand the world around us. Atheism is the same, just with a less supernatural slant to it. Neither is inherently evil or good, and to say otherwise is just silly.

As far as arming the people goes, even Gandhi was in favor of it. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." He obviously preferred peaceful protest to violent revolution, but between doing nothing and revolting, he would have chosen the revolt - I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour

(I wasn't advocating a state religion. That's why I specifically said "religious book of the child's preference." I'll go into further detail later.)

Like I said in my original post, that was an unrefined idea. That was like the miner had just pulled the rock out of the wall; it wasn't pretty, but there might be something good in it. To refine the idea a bit, I agree that it would most likely need to be secular. I mean, kids in china and Japan are forced to meditate, for crying out loud. Look at how much higher their test scores are! If anything, we need to learn a bit from them.

I see what your saying, that parents should teach children morals, etc. Sadly, that just doesn't work anymore here in the states. The 60's threw us way off course. The hippies didn't exactly hold themselves to the highest echelons of morality. So they never taught it to their kids. That process goes on down the line till we have modern day where the children and the grand children of the hippy generation are not taught morals. That isn't to say that no one is taught morals. A large amount, however, of children today are, to be frank, assholes.

I was made fun of for being Christian. A girl asked me if I believed in Christ. The students then proceeded to say they were stupid myths and laughed. I was called gay because I helped other students and didn't act like a jerk behind teachers backs.

[Galla-]

This is all looking like an attempt to put a state religion in place... Not cool. There are as many, if not more, Christians bashing atheists as the reverse. I was raised Catholic, chose to be agnostic, and I think that the Bible has some great moral lessons to it (although I never really read it much). I also think it has some horrible moral lessons to it. Religion is no better - or worse - a moral teacher than what a non-religious person would get. We learn many of the same lessons at school, in everyday life, and from our parents. I see no reason to ban religion, or discriminate against it - it is simply the attempts of man to understand the world around us. Atheism is the same, just with a less supernatural slant to it. Neither is inherently evil or good, and to say otherwise is just silly.

As far as arming the people goes, even Gandhi was in favor of it. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." He obviously preferred peaceful protest to violent revolution, but between doing nothing and revolting, he would have chosen the revolt - I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour

(I wasn't advocating a state religion. That's why I specifically said "religious book of the child's preference." I'll go into further detail later.)

Like I said in my original post, that was an unrefined idea. That was like the miner had just pulled the rock out of the wall; it wasn't pretty, but there might be something good in it. To refine the idea a bit, I agree that it would most likely need to be secular. I mean, kids in china and Japan are forced to meditate, for crying out loud. Look at how much higher their test scores are! If anything, we need to learn a bit from them.

I see what your saying, that parents should teach children morals, etc. Sadly, that just doesn't work anymore here in the states. The 60's threw us way off course. The hippies didn't exactly hold themselves to the highest echelons of morality. So they never taught it to their kids. That process goes on down the line till we have modern day where the children and the grand children of the hippy generation are not taught morals. That isn't to say that no one is taught morals. A large amount, however, of children today are, to be frank, assholes.

I was made fun of for being Christian. A girl asked me if I believed in Christ. The students then proceeded to say they were stupid myths and laughed. I was called gay because I helped other students and didn't act like a jerk behind teachers backs.

Define "morals", because I'm fairly sure that legalising all drugs and not supporting state sanctioned murder is fairly moral.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after all.

[Senestrum]

So true.

Armed citizens prevent crime.

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

Why on earth would reading religious books help?

[Tsal-Kar]

As do moral citizens. The 60's, if memory serves, is when we got rid of the bible from our schools. I'm not saying that every citizen has to be christian. All I'm saying is that the bible does teach good morals, as do other religious books. Maybe it's just coincidence, but maybe it should be required or something like 10 or so minutes of reading out of your preferred religious book or something.

NOTE: That is an unrefined idea and has no thought behind it at all. I am not suggesting that a law like that be enforced or passed. It is the starting base of the thought process.

Why on earth would reading religious books help?

Helping others, not killing people, not committing adultery, not stealing, respecting your elders (although there should be an amendment adding "if they deserve it" in there), etc. However, that does not mean that we should be required to read it. That is just silly, especially since we should really learn pretty much all of those values in our day-to-day lives; if someone can't, then odds are the Bible wouldn't help either, because they clearly have issues with right and wrong (at least for killing and stealing)
P.S. I didn't mention adultery as something that would automatically be connected to issues with right and wrong, because some couples are okay with it, and it can even help some relationships. Don't ask me how, that's just what I heard

[Senestrum]

And do you think that reading a book will make people do that if they are not already inclined to be nice people?

[President Mathias]

And do you think that reading a book will make people do that if they are not already inclined to be nice people?

Seriously, I said that was an unrefined idea. It had quite seriously popped up at that moment. Plus, it worked back then....

[Lessnt]

killing does not equal civilized.

[Tsal-Kar]

killing does not equal civilized.

Nor does not killing

[Andaluciae]

killing does not equal civilized.

Pacifism does not equal civilized, either.

Rather, living in a community setting, in permanent settlements of some sort, under law, is the hallmark of civilization.

[Separatist Peoples]

killing does not equal civilized.

Pacifism does not equal civilized, either.

Rather, living in a community setting, in permanent settlements of some sort, under law, is the hallmark of civilization.

No. Its baths. Baths make civilization.

Ask the Romans. The only difference between "civilized territory" and "uncivilized wilderness" was the presence or lack of public baths.

Weird, huh?

[President Mathias]

Pacifism does not equal civilized, either.

Rather, living in a community setting, in permanent settlements of some sort, under law, is the hallmark of civilization.

No. Its baths. Baths make civilization.

Ask the Romans. The only difference between "civilized territory" and "uncivilized wilderness" was the presence or lack of public baths.

Weird, huh?

The Romans slaughtered people in their Gladiatorial games, however. Is that not uncivilized?

[Maroza]

The Romans were an interesting mix of uncivilized ways with new, civilized and ground breaking ways. They invented cement, have public plumbing and were a republic. At the same time they liked to see death and thought putting up POWs and criminals in arenas to fight to the death with each other or the occasional exotic animal was a brilliant way to pass the time, TV and rated M video games didn't exist yet.

[Separatist Peoples]

No. Its baths. Baths make civilization.

Ask the Romans. The only difference between "civilized territory" and "uncivilized wilderness" was the presence or lack of public baths.

Weird, huh?

The Romans slaughtered people in their Gladiatorial games, however. Is that not uncivilized?

I'd totally watch gladiatorial games. They sound pretty interesting. Besides, fights were very rarely "to the death". It'd be like hardcore boxing. I'd totally watch a gladiatorial fight, at least once. Especially the ones where they flooded the Colosseum for naval battles. I mean, come on, who wouldn't like to see that?

[President Mathias]

The Romans were an interesting mix of uncivilized ways with new, civilized and ground breaking ways. They invented cement, have public plumbing and were a republic. At the same time they liked to see death and thought putting up POWs and criminals in arenas to fight to the death with each other or the occasional exotic animal was a brilliant way to pass the time, TV and rated M video games didn't exist yet.

So you study the Romans? Finally, someone to talk with! Are you only a casual observer?