Previous 11 - 20 Next
Why are Republicans constantly screwing themselves?
In response to:

Guns Save Lives

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:47 AM
Sorry. Mistake. I meant to say that "that would be 120-180 thousand people over five years, about 24-36 thousand per year."
In response to:

Guns Save Lives

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:46 AM
Sorry. Mistake. That would be 120-180 thousand people over five years, about 24-36 thousand per year.
In response to:

Guns Save Lives

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:44 AM
Still, even if only 1% of Americans, 3 million, own guns, and 4-6% of these gun owners claim that guns saved their life (or a life) once in the past five years, that would be 1.2 to 1.8 million people over five years, about 24-36 thousand per year. And that's a lot.
In response to:

Guns Save Lives

ronrontaiwan Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 3:40 AM
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".
Previous 11 - 20 Next