For you no guns solution people
-
I meant if I must face a madman, I'd rather he not have a gun, than me have one, too.
Slacker007 wrote:
You don't need a gun, to harm.
This statement is both true, and stupid. If you joined the army, would you expect to be given a gun, or would you say 'I don't need a gun to harm people' ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Of course. Because you're an idiot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Of course. Because you're an idiot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It's amazing isn't it? The complete suspension of all logic and reason in favor of an old document, written in a different time, and by men who's intentions we can only guess at and who could never have guessed at the world we find ourselves living in today.
-
It's amazing isn't it? The complete suspension of all logic and reason in favor of an old document, written in a different time, and by men who's intentions we can only guess at and who could never have guessed at the world we find ourselves living in today.
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
So those defending it are incapable of comprehension at a grade 3 level? I suspect that's not the case and in fact they've suspended all reason due to indoctrination. That's a lot easier to do when you can defend your point of view with "it is written...". It all seems very familiar to me.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I think anyone with grade 3 English can see that the original intent was not what is defended today
So those defending it are incapable of comprehension at a grade 3 level? I suspect that's not the case and in fact they've suspended all reason due to indoctrination. That's a lot easier to do when you can defend your point of view with "it is written...". It all seems very familiar to me.
Yes, I agree. The issue is not general stupidity, but a blind spot due to indoctrination. I meant a grade 3 reader with no preconceived ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, I agree. The issue is not general stupidity, but a blind spot due to indoctrination. I meant a grade 3 reader with no preconceived ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of
Really? You don't think there's some similarity between someone who say, rejects gay marriage, because they interpret the bible as saying it is unholy and someone like John Simonds who'd rather see kids educated remotely, in isolation from each other, as a solution to them being killed at a school because his revered constitution can't be challenged? Or someone that says the odd mass killing is a reasonable price to pay for their 'freedom'?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* yes, because it's not apt in any way I can think of
Really? You don't think there's some similarity between someone who say, rejects gay marriage, because they interpret the bible as saying it is unholy and someone like John Simonds who'd rather see kids educated remotely, in isolation from each other, as a solution to them being killed at a school because his revered constitution can't be challenged? Or someone that says the odd mass killing is a reasonable price to pay for their 'freedom'?
Well, perhaps. I can see a definite connection between religion and the US view on guns. I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, perhaps. I can see a definite connection between religion and the US view on guns. I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
I don't know the specifics of what you believe. I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point. My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I thought you were trying to be pointed about something *I* believe.
I don't know the specifics of what you believe. I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point. My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
_Josh_ wrote:
I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point.
I think gay marriage in general is a dumb idea only because I think it's part of an overall campaign to get a minority group special treatment. As a christian, I don't care that people are gay, nor do I want to single them out in any negative way.
_Josh_ wrote:
My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Sure. Like people who start museums to prove the world is 6000 years old, because they incorrectly believe the Bible says that ? I talked about that in church on sunday, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
_Josh_ wrote:
I chose the gay marriage thing as an example because I know you reject that specific idea and I thought it would be less confrontational allowing you to better see my point.
I think gay marriage in general is a dumb idea only because I think it's part of an overall campaign to get a minority group special treatment. As a christian, I don't care that people are gay, nor do I want to single them out in any negative way.
_Josh_ wrote:
My point is more general though, if you accept an idea solely because it is written in a venerated document then you must suspend reason and logic in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Sure. Like people who start museums to prove the world is 6000 years old, because they incorrectly believe the Bible says that ? I talked about that in church on sunday, actually.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Like people who start museums to prove the world is 6000 years old, because they incorrectly believe the Bible says that ?
But it's not because they incorrectly believe, it's because they have 'faith'. Reason is suspended.
Faith is the origin of their incorrect belief, but the fact is, the Bible still does not say that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Faith is the origin of their incorrect belief, but the fact is, the Bible still does not say that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Faith is the origin of their incorrect belief, but the fact is, the Bible still does not say that.
Is there an example of something the bible does say that is now known to be incorrect?
I would agree that any reasonable reading of Gen 1 has God creating the world in 6 literal days, and that the only reason people look for ways for it to not say that, is that it is plainly not true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
That's pretty much the stupidest thing I've seen posted on CodeProject.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997I don't know
-
Of course. Because you're an idiot.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
That is incorrect. The UK permits no guns yet they are routinely used by criminals to shoot people. Anyone intent enough will always find a way to get hold of weapons, regardless of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
There are probably less than 20 gun involved murders in the UK annually - I think we have the problem largely under control
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
It might be worth noting that he injured 22, and didn't kill 18. But then again, it might not. There's no easy solution to any of these tragic events.
There is a very easy solution. Drastic enforcement of how sane people need to be to own a gun, of storage regulations. Prison if you sell to people that not mentally stable, if you are found to have given an OK to a guy that ends up shooting someone (as a psychiatrist) or suck at safely storing your guns/ammo. Sure it drives costs through the roof for the buyers/stores but who the hell cares. You buy/sell guns, take the responsibility.
