skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for Anon1

( Anon1 )

Comments made by Anon1

Texas Legislature Reverses Course On Immigration Laws

It seems like we ignore how the United States came to be.... The natives didn't exactly pack up and leave voluntarily....

Now we complain about illegal immigration? What should they do, amass an army and come slaughter us instead? Why would it be unacceptable for them if it was acceptable for us?

January 20, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More Troops Died From Suicide Than Combat In 2012

Ron Paul received the most military donations of any candidate in 2008, and was 2nd only to Obama in 2012, even without support from the Republican party.

And what is Ron Paul's stance regarding the military again?

Shut down foreign bases, bring the troops home, and secure our borders.

Money talks, and the troops have spoken loudly. Now if only the American public could vote in a leader that actually listens.

January 14, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Losing Our Religion: The Growth Of The 'Nones'

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "

-Steven Weinberg

January 14, 2013 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Smoking And Guns At The Del Mar Fairground

This is nothing more than an emotional reaction to an anomaly, helped in large part by the media's martyring of Adam Lanza. I think it was best said in a post-Columbine interview between Bill O'Reilly and Marilyn Manson:

O'REILLY: You can take some of your lyrics as, you know, "You'll understand when I'm dead." I mean, disturbed kids could take the lyrics and say, you know, When I'm dead, everybody's going to know me.

"MANSON: Well, I think that's a very valid point, and I think that that's a reflection of a -- not necessarily this program, but of television in general. If you die and enough people are watching, then you become a martyr, you become a hero, you become well-known. So when you have things like Columbine and you have these kids that are angry and they have something to say and no one's listening, the media sends a message that if you do something loud enough and it gets our attention, then you will be famous for it. Those kids ended up on the cover of "Time" magazine. The media gave them exactly what they wanted...."

Let's be real... If we were going to prioritize what guns to ban/control/prohibit based on how deadly they have proven to be, handguns would be getting banned before rifles. For those that argue handguns are not as deadly in mass shootings, allow me to remind you that the Virginia Tech shooter Cho killed 32 adults with only 2 handguns. It was the 2nd deadliest school shooting in America. Why are no gun prohibition advocates arguing for the prohibition of handguns, despite being proven as a greater overall danger? It certainly speaks to the weaknesses of their position.

By the way, the petitioners mentioned in this article should remind themselves that they're using 1st amendment freedoms to try and take away 2nd amendment freedoms.

January 14, 2013 at 9:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Del Mar Woman Fighting Fairground Gun Shows

"That's a pretty flawed analogy to draw because unlike modern guns, modern free speech doesn't make it easier to kill people, and you know it."

The analogy holds true in the fact that modern forms of communication allow free speech to be heard faster and farther than ever.

Also, I am unsure how to measure 'ease of kill', and I am sure that no such criteria exists in either the constitution or in any modern gun restrictions. The 'ease of kill' with a shotgun can be higher than a semi-automatic rifle, depending on distance and ammo type, so how do you plan on implementing such a broad criteria into gun control legislation? You really can't... and that's why it's a pointless argument for you to make in the first place.

Plus, you ignored all my other points to focus on a single part. Please address the entirety of my posts, as total context is essential to a completely honest and thought-out debate.

January 13, 2013 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Del Mar Woman Fighting Fairground Gun Shows

The constitution doesn't have an expiration date.

Would you make the argument that free speech doesn't apply to tv or radio, because those technologies didn't exist then? Of course not. Because the core concept exists, despite the lack of technological advent.

That's the point of having broad rights and freedoms; to preserve the core concept. The core concept of the 2nd amendment was a guarantee to the American citizen a right to arm themselves against potential oppressors.

"...the vast majority of people exercising that right are not seeking to form a well-regulated militia, but wish instead to protect their homes and entertain themselves with their toys."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Don't hate me for my freedoms!

January 13, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Del Mar Woman Fighting Fairground Gun Shows

This whole argument boils down to the acknowledgement of the inevitability of tragedy, and how to cope on a societal level.

Whether it's a shooting, or a deadly pile-up on the highway, or a bunch of backyard swimming pool drownings, we have to accept that bad things happen and we can never completely prevent this.

The choice we are left with is: How much of our liberties will we willingly give up in order to even attempt to become more secure? We are often not given the full context of the "problem", so very often an educated solution is near impossible to achieve.

(For example, when faced with the fact that most gun murders are committed with handguns, most gun control advocates divert the argument towards the 'mass' shootings. It's a tactic that distracts from the greater argument of sensible policy, with all variables considered.)

If we can't have an honest, open discussion about the realities of the world, we aren't going to move forward. Almost everything in life can be misused and abused. Risk assessment is something we instinctively do every day. When you choose to get in your car, you understand the risk. But would we ever ban cars, knowing the value they hold for us as a free society? Of course not, because we accept the idea that people can die in accidents as an unintended consequence of being able to travel so efficiently. We seek to reduce the number of accidents, but we know we can never prevent them all.... Can you see the parallels?

This ideology can be traced back to segregation, and more recently to the ban on gay marriage. A majority legislating their morality, forcing their beliefs on others. I still struggle with how people are STILL applying this logic to issues concerning our wonderful American freedoms. I mean, it's the 2nd amendment in our country's founding document. How can you seriously dispute that right, or discriminate against people who have chosen to exercise it?

January 12, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Del Mar Woman Fighting Fairground Gun Shows

Prohibition doesn't work. When are we going to learn this? Whether it's drugs, guns, sex, marriage, etc., it all boils down to a group of advocates trying to force their beliefs onto others, instead of practicing their beliefs personally.

The lack of tolerance and respect for someone whose views differ is horribly anti-American in spirit. The freedoms given to us by the Constitution are to protect those with unpopular opinions, because popular opinions don't need protections. When any of our Constitutional freedoms are threatened, we should be bipartisan in protecting the rights of the people - all of them. A purpose of those protections is to prevent the exact types of political measures that are being exercised by the gun control advocates currently... The kind that use fear to manipulate someone into giving up their rights. The basic moral concept holds true: If you are not infringing upon the rights of another individual, you should be free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That being said...

Guns are tools. They are designed to kill. The unfortunate reality of life is that sometimes we are placed in situations where we need to defend ourselves with deadly force, and the law allows it. Having the best tool for the job is always smart. Guns are no exception.

We already have laws in place to punish people that misuse guns or own them illegally. Why isn't this sufficient? The idea of preemptive prosecution is the most slippery of slopes.

Almost anything can be abused or misused. People sniff glues and paints.. are we banning those? Cars kill way more people than gun murders, and there are instances where the car was purposefully used as a weapon. Are we banning those? No.

Logically, we should not ban guns because a handful of people misuse them.

Logically, we should seek to ban the most dangerous things first.

Logically, we should learn from the mistakes of prohibition.

Logically, we shouldn't allow bans on anything that gets a popular vote, whether it's gay marriage or guns. Ban one, ban all.

Sadly enough, it seems logic often eludes people in this discussion. Behind every gun control/prohibition advocate, you'll find an argument with selective statistics taken out of context, used to instill fear and illicit an emotional response. That is very dangerous, and it seems to be working.

When faced with a threat to your life, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

January 9, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )