Sowell writes: "Surveys of American gun owners have found that 4 to 6 percent reported using a gun in self-defense within the previous five years. That is not a very high percentage but, in a country with 300 million people, that works out to hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns per year. " While I believe he's correct, that guns save more innocent lives than they take, the above paragraph seems a bit misleading. Sowell says that it's a survey of American gun owners. Later, he says that there are about 300 million people in the U.S. I don't think, though, that there are 300 million gun owners.

Family values may be ruled by judges. But what difference does it make to heterosexuals, who are not a part of homosexual family? If you're in a heterosexual marriage/family, how would the rulings or laws be any different with a homosexual marriage/family?

It's not all about me, Becca. I'm just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy in what Metaxas is trying to say. He's saying that we shouldn't force others to believe what they don't want to believe. Yet, he feels it's fine to say that the state should force gays to believe that they have no marriage rights. This negatively effects their lives. Yet, in allowing gays to marry, how is this negatively effecting the lives of those against gay marriage?

Why is one fine, but not the other? Why is it OK for the state to tell someone how to live their personal life, but not OK for the state to tell someone how to run a business? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Perhaps the state shouldn't be involved in either.

According to Metaxas, this is fine: State: "No, you can't marry the person you love, the person who also wants to marry you, because of that person's gender. You can't openly live your life loving this person that you love. You will not get the same benefits that other people in similar relationships get (because those people are marrying those of another gender). According to Metaxas, this isn't fine: State: You have to run your business the way we see fit.

Around 7:30, he again more than implies that the state shouldn't tell others how to define marriage. Yet, a mere minute or so earlier, he was saying that we shouldn't force others to believe what they don't want to believe. If two dudes want to get married, they just want to be seen as married in the eyes of the state, having the same benefits that a heterosexual couple would have. They're not forcing anyone to believe that gay marriage is good, but they believe it is good. Metaxas seems to be saying that it's OK for some Christians to tell gay people what they should believe, then get the government to force that belief upon them. Is this not hypocritical?

But, there it is: If the Catholic Church doesn't fall in line on that issue, the state will make it pay. There are consequences which are felt. Tangible consequences. Yet, if the state tells the Catholic Church that it can choose to perform gay marriages, and that those marriages will be valid in the eyes of the state, what tangible, negative consequences are felt by the Church? I'd say "none".

I feel like he's not talking about "religious freedom" at all. For example, he mentions gay marriage. There are people using their religion to justify telling others who can/can't be considered "married" in the eyes of the state. If Lance and Bruce, or if Monica and Tammy, want to get married, how are they taking away anyone's "religious freedom"? They're not. At all. How would two people of the same sex getting married make anyone else's religious life more/less "free"? It wouldn't. At all. Metaxas seems to imply that it would. He makes a good point when discussing birth control, the Catholic church, and the state's involvement. The Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to believe what the state wants it to believe, or pay.

It's hard to fault the idea of a flat percentage paid by everyone for federal income taxes. But the reality of implementing it will be very, very difficult. Right now, approximately 47% of earners in the U.S. pay no federal income taxes. If a flat tax is implemented, say at 10%, these people will be paying much, much more. Right now, the fed income tax rate for the "rich" is over 39%, paying 10% would be a huge drop. On paper, it would appear that the poor would be paying much more than they do, while the rich pay much less than they do. How will congress sell this idea? What would happen to the POTUS that allowed this idea to come to fruition?

I can't see myself ever voting Democrat, but it does suck that of these twenty, only six happened in my lifetime, and of those six, two were only achieved through war.

I credit O'Reilly for holding Powell's feet to the fire. I credit Powell for asking why O'Reilly seems to see Powell as an African American first (commenting first solely on stats related to African Americans). While I disagree with Powell on a couple of things, I enjoyed the civil discussion.