dimreepr

Don’t be surprised if someone answers, nobody would have been injured if the staff members had guns.

Fair enough, I’ll consider myself suitably admonished. TBH it’s a pet hate of mine, jumping into a thread of many pages without reading the previous input; my only excuse is a related debate we had in the pub whilst quaffing a few too many ales, so please accept my apologies.

I’m not suggesting it is: I’m suggesting his/her existence is irrelevant.

We will almost certainly never know if the historical figure ‘Jesus’ ever existed but someone did (someone who had the idea’s written in the NT) there are many examples of people who have discovered or realised the same basic understanding (enlightenment) Buddha, Mohamed and Gandhi spring to mind; and in all these teachings the same basic tenants are apparent, not least of which is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ or the value of ‘forgiveness’. Maybe we need to realise the benefit of what these great people are trying to teach rather than debunking them because they introduce a concept. There’s nothing wrong in a model that leads one to understanding, even if that model is false, teaching is reliant on such models or lies, we do it all the time (when educating children); I’m an atheist so for me God is nothing more than a lie (BS) but if that leads to a greater understanding, contentment or happiness in others, evidence is irrelevant.

As the others have mentioned there is no scientific explanation for the soul, other planes of existence or an afterlife. I think the concepts were developed by religions to give people who fail to understand, that forgiving others is a good thing to do for your own well being and contentment. So they promise your soul/spirit would be cleansed and that other plain of existence (heaven) or your future self (reincarnation) would be better and happier; when really this, your life now, is better and happier.

I’ve always thought that anyone who wants to be a policeman should be rejected as an applicant; and that should, automatically, be extended to politicians, as anyone who thinks they know the answer almost certainly, doesn’t.

A very good question but one that’s, maybe, a little too subjective, to be measurable, scientifically. I for one remember having a very high libido throughout my teenage years and well into my thirties at which time I found my, apparent, true love. However I had a childhood that resulted in my having a very low self esteem and so any female that I found attractive seemed too, automatically, both increase my libido and increase my fear of said female and so limit my chance of procreation. So did this automatic limitation increase the longevity of my production of testosterone until my coupling or was it an inevitable result of my biology?

Since you’ve skipped this, gainsay it is, so I’ll leave you with a final thought; your precious doesn’t care about you it just wants to get to Mordor. IOW don’t rage against the end of today because tomorrow will happen anyway.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

Because of these three words “of certain rights” which I’m sure was intended for fundamental rights like the right to life. Until you can grasp the fact that your “natural inalienable” rights have changed and will change again (despite the ninth amendment) through the natural processes of a democracy, this debate is just gainsay and pointless.

Bolded mine: Throughout this thread your position has remained ambiguous, to say the least; on one hand, you seem to suggest a solution and then you seem, equally, determined to argue and discredit every possible solution. So I must ask, is this question ironic or confused?

That's NOT an explanation, it's a reiteration; so I ask again, please explain?

Please explain?

Humans come from nature but our rights come from the collective understanding/agreement of humans and so are, obviously, changeable so being enlightened equals understanding not assumption. Natural rights, in its purest form, refer to ones right to determine one’s own path through the choices we make; for instance, if I choose to wield a sword I must accept a sword may kill me.

At the risk of an audible worldwide groan, the average American would be far safer if it said “the right of the people to keep and arm bears” provided, of course, the bears were restricted. The argument has, long since, become a parody of itself and despite ‘overtones’ insistence that both sides are equally culpable only the gun nuts have made it so; every country that have restricted guns have not confiscated or banned them entirely, so please America, for the sake of your children, grow up and accept the fact that times have changed.

Who was enlightened? And why did they come to that conclusion? And, LOL, how are we not fully human without them?

Did you ever consider that you may have missed my point?

Multiple issues have indeed been raised but the argument seems polarised, so for me ‘it’ refers to why a moral/ethical issue could be ignored in favour of keeping, things.

Rather than send this (Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)) off topic, I'll start anew, but after 41 pages of, essentially, just gainsay in the face of a moral/ethical imperative, I have to ask. Is it culture? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it belligerence? Is it self interest?

WTF try telling that to an average North Korean.

Being closed minded is a result of not being open minded; not a result of one’s attitude towards a deity. Deciding your belief is correct, no matter what, constitutes a closed mind; an attitude that’s shared by both, atheist and theist, sometimes. People are people, much like a dog is a dog, and while we may flatter ourselves that we are more important; dogs have an equal claim on that importance, anything else is closed minded.

The problem, as I see it, is fear: 1/ The fear that any limitation on gun ownership will see the ever growing profits of gun manufacturers stop growing or, heaven forbid, reduce; which will, of course, end civilisation or, at least, cripple the economy. 2/ The fear that ANY limit on gun ownership would automatically, via the slippery slope, mean confiscation, is just as ludicrous. The fact that change will happen is axiomatic and resistance is futile.

Nail well and truly struck. Hiding again I see; tomorrow’s law if it’s wrong today, and given the death and suffering it causes, it is wrong, should be changed; shame on those who’d rather take money than fight for everyone’s right to life; things, should never come before that most basic of all rights.

Are you suggesting gun owners, will actively, threaten their liberal neighbours? All knots, however entangled, can be untied.