https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/police-respond-to-shooting-inside-christchurch-mosque/news-story/db75a7aa031b8db068ca7c7e44c4728e

It is a terrible event, we have come to expect this sort of thing from radicalised Muslims, but we have forgotten that there are other radicals among us, white supremacists, neo nazi and such like, and if there was ever a reason that assault weapons should be banned this it. Surely we have had enough of this. These terrorists didn't just have guns they also possessed bombs which weren't detonated

So at least there are three more gutless terrorists off the streets.

I hear that Trump has threatened people with his radical friends, he should really stick a plug in his mouth, then he can talk out of his backside which he does frequently

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-warns-it-would-be-very-bad-if-my-police-biker-gang-fans-decided-to-get-tough-on-my-opponent (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-warns-it-would-be-very-bad-if-my-police-biker-gang-fans-decided-to-get-tough-on-my-opponents)s

I thought NZ had strict gun laws ? Why didn't those laws prevent it ? Yeah there are radicals on all sides and the shooter should be put down like the mad dog he is. ... But consider that elected officials have taken a nonchalant position on what is becoming national crisis's around the world …. the issue is uncontrolled mass migration into nations . That I believe is the main thrust of the shooter's so called manifesto . I can assure you that as horrible as the death toll is in this case ,it does not compare to the (estimated by politifact ) 600 homicides committed in the US annually by illegals . A nation has a right and an obligation to protect it's borders . If the nation won't then eventually a nut job is likely to think he has to take it into his own hands .

I thought NZ had strict gun laws ? Why didn't those laws prevent it ? Yeah there are radicals on all sides and the shooter should be put down like the mad dog he is. ... But consider that elected officials have taken a nonchalant position on what is becoming national crisis's around the world …. the issue is uncontrolled mass migration into nations . That I believe is the main thrust of the shooter's so called manifesto . I can assure you that as horrible as the death toll is in this case ,it does not compare to the (estimated by politifact ) 600 homicides committed in the US annually by illegals . A nation has a right and an obligation to protect it's borders . If the nation won't then eventually a nut job is likely to think he has to take it into his own hands .

NZ apparently doesn't have gun laws as strict as ours, but that may change. How this terrorist obtained the weapons easily will need to be answered. The point of migration in a place like NZ is moot, there isn't uncontrolled migration except emigration to OZ, we are forever sending their criminals back to them. What is disgusting in this is comments by Australia Senator Fraiser Anning, but he may pay at the ballot box. This act was allegedly in reaction to what has happened in Europe and the atrocities committed by Muslims there but it was a cowardly act. I agree with you regarding the obligation of a nation to protect its borders

How many homicides have been committed in the US annually by nativeborns? How many victims of mass murder by white men?

non sequitur

But food for thought....

In case you didn't read it, the NZ terrorist, in his 73-page manifesto, specifically cited President Trump as an inspiration. His online manifesto praises Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”

How many homicides have been committed in the US annually by native borns? How many victims of mass murder by white men?

Irrelevant, this isn't about white men, it isn't about where someone was born, it is about why anyone would commit a vicious act like this against people they do not know

Irrelevant, this isn't about white men, it isn't about where someone was born, it is about why anyone would commit a vicious act like this against people they do not know
His manifesto was filled with hatred for minorities (e.g., Muslims) and urged white supremacists to rid the world of them.

Mass shooting in New Zealand. White people and Donald Trump are responsible. Wow, what a stretch. I hope to live long enough to see the day when people stop being so obsessed by race and more concerned with what's on the inside.

This will, of course, be used to further restrict gun ownership in NZ.

I dont read killers screeds .but I have heard excerpts . Manifesto implies a coherent political treatise .Calling it a manifesto elevates the importance of the ramblings and the person who authors it . I also place no legitimacy to his thoughts or motivations .He is nothing more than a mass murderer . If I was to take him seriously then I'd have to take his words seriously when he says that he chose guns because of the polarizing effect it would have on the US politics . He hoped to spark civil war here. You should think twice about suggesting his thoughts and Trump's the same .

I dont read killers screeds .but I have heard excerpts . Manifesto implies a coherent political treatise .Calling it a manifesto elevates the importance of the ramblings and the person who authors it . I also place no legitimacy to his thoughts or motivations .He is nothing more than a mass murderer . If I was to take him seriously then I'd have to take his words seriously when he says that he chose guns because of the polarizing effect it would have on the US politics . He hoped to spark civil war here. You should think twice about suggesting his thoughts and Trump's the same .

To think that committing an act of terrorism in NZ is some sort of commentary on the US is lunacy, and clearly this person is a lunatic. No doubt there are many fringe dwellers in the US but they need no incitement from outside to commit heinous acts.

I think we have to take all militant minorities seriously and stop using them for political purposes as Trump did recently. All of these acts are an answer to aggression and the way to stop them is to stop interfering in other nations, How is that for thinking twice

I dont read killers screeds .but I have heard excerpts . Manifesto implies a coherent political treatise .Calling it a manifesto elevates the importance of the ramblings and the person who authors it . I also place no legitimacy to his thoughts or motivations .He is nothing more than a mass murderer . If I was to take him seriously then I'd have to take his words seriously when he says that he chose guns because of the polarizing effect it would have on the US politics . He hoped to spark civil war here. You should think twice about suggesting his thoughts and Trump's the same .
He is a white male mass murderer of brown people.

Since he did what he wrote (and said) what he would do, then did it, methinks we have to take him seriously.

Trump has said a number of positive things about white supremacists and the KKK and negative things about black and brown people. The mass murderer merely echoed Trump.

Trump has said a number of positive things about white supremacists and the KKK and negative things about black and brown people. . not true ,

There have always been those nuts among us willing to do the most heinous of acts. Who cares why they do it be it the ISIS criminals, or a local supremist. They are lunatics that don't represent the vast majority of good humans. Obviously they are everywhere and can be anywhere. Unfortunately we cannot predict where or when they decide to kill, so the why is also a mystery. When you hate that much, no telling when or where it will come to fruition.

Unfortunately it was NZ turn to feel the haters curse, that will shake us all for a long time to come. I'm not going so far as to blame the dufus and his over the top bully hate speech, words, and actions, because at best he is but a symptom of a much bigger problem that allows hate and fear to thrive and influence the lunatics to action. As a good thoughtful human this killer of the innocent falls very short, and for sure there are many others.

I don't buy his lies and excuse that killed so many.

Trump has said a number of positive things about white supremacists and the KKK and negative things about black and brown people.

Yeah. I'd love to hear all those positive things he said about WS and the KKK. I don't recall any of that. Also love to see the negative quotes as well.

He said there were good people on both side speaking of the white nationalist and protesters in Charlottesville, and he made Muslims the enemy when he said Islam hates America. Just to name two examples.

You see how it works Clete . The left
believes every bad thing in the world is the fault of Trump. So they take the outrageous attack in NZ and all but blame it on him .

Here is the quote where he allegedly praised White Supremist after Charlottesville :



"But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Va.. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time."I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry Mcauliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true -- really, I say this so strongly, true affection for each other. Our country is doing very well in so many ways.


You see .Since he did not specifically condemn white supremists he therefore supports them .

The whole kkk thing was an ambush by the media . Trump had a history of condemning David Duke going back to 2000.
In 2000, Trump told NBC’s “Today” that he wouldn’t seek the Reform Party nomination because he said the party was “self-destructing...………

” Matt LAUER: “When you say the party is self-destructing, what do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?” Trump: “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined – a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”

The New York Times also reported at the time that Trump issued a news release referring to Duke as “a Klansman” and not the “company I wish to keep.”

Trump also spoke out against Duke in 1991 – three days after Duke lost a race for governor in Louisiana. CNN’s Larry KING: “Did the David Duke thing bother you? Fifty-five percent of the whites in Louisiana voted for him.” Trump: “I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostility in this country. There’s a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States "



But since he did not forcebly disavow Duke's support during the Presidential campaign ,he therefore supports the KKK.

That's the left's bizzare logic.


Recently David Duke tweeted praise for Rep Ilhan Omar's public statements against Israel
: "By Defiance to Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupation Government) Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!”

I have heard no one in the left ,including prominent Jewish leaders like Schumer ,demanding that she condemn and disavow Duke's statements ,

meanwhile the silence is deafening .
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/death-toll-week-nigeria-attack-doubles-130-190219193655675.html?fbclid=IwAR23WKDmauPyUK8qJCSs UEdcdRGgRPxb7XUB7vWwDSRQ1i0cubFLBH6uj5Q


https://guardian.ng/news/suspected-fulani-herdsmen-others-kill-32-in-kaduna-sokoto/

from Reuters :

"Beyond his white nationalistic views, he claimed to be an environmentalist and said he is a fascist who believes China is the nation that most aligns with his political and social values."

Indeed, I suspect they weren't muslim

Tal, where did Trump say there were good people on both sides? He certainly didn't say it in the quote Tom posted above.

He did say there were very fine people on both sides .And indeed there were on both the protest and counter protest . It is too easy and intellectually lazy to say that the protest only involved white racists and Antifa. Do you think the President said there were fine people in Antifa too ? The context of Trump's comment was that there were pro-statue, anti-statue people assembled there . Trump also said "

"I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee."

did you see the snowflake from NYU confront Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the victims and blame her for the attack because she spoke out against anti-Semitism ? The left is going insane here . And of course Chelsea being a good lib could not defend herself .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaMnmgZ9zSA

did you see the snowflake from NYU confront Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the victims and blame her for the attack because she spoke out against anti-Semitism ? The left is going insane here . And of course Chelsea being a good lib could not defend herself .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaMnmgZ9zSA

But the right is locked and loaded, and massacring people at places of worship. Of course the dufus blows it off as a small group of people and the Aussie senator says it's because of an invasion of foreigners.

Both Trump and the Aussie Senator are correct. I can't tell you how many times I was corrected when I said things like Islamic terrorist that it was unfair to smear a whole group for the actions of a small group.

It's funny how when a Moslem does something, we are reminded a million times that they are not representative of all Moslems, but should a white person do something, then all white people and Trump get pulled into it. You wait in vain for a liberal to tell us that very few white people are racist terrorists.

Spare me the boohoo victim stuff. I never said anything about all white people. The dufus and the senator were stoking hate and fear from their right wing constituents and they are both wrong for the rhetoric. They put themselves in it by opening their big mouths and the dufus does it daily.

Disgusting.

Yeah. Thank goodness no liberal democrats engage in stoking hate and fear.

Every loyal republican can stand up and say with happiness, "Thank goodness we are not the party of Maxine Waters, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and other similar hate-filled crazies."

Both Trump and the Aussie Senator are correct. I can't tell you how many times I was corrected when I said things like Islamic terrorist that it was unfair to smear a whole group for the actions of a small group.

You actually think that dingbat bottom feeder Anning is correct? It is like saying migration is an excuse for blowing away people you don't like. There is a big difference between a community that would not condemn terrorists in their midst and a deranged gunman who was so much of a coward he went to a foreign country to carry out his atrocity.. Dump should not connect the dots either, he should have better sense, but then he lacks leadership

He didn't . He responded to a specific question

He didn't . He responded to a specific question

Then he should learn to say no comment.

Pound another egg on the idiots head! Yeah I know its wrong, but appropriate!

Could not agree more, however, you cannot just assault someone otherwise you are no better than the terrorist. We need a system of weeding out idiots before they are elected

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/how-fraser-anning-got-into-parliament-with-000-per-cent-of-the-vote/news-story/6719c400eacdd7022838c31e87c86b15

obviously the system we have isn't idiot proof

Ours system is substantially flawed, or maybe we have too many idiots.

During a press conference Friday,Trump was asked if he sees " that white nationalism is a rising threat around the world?" His response was
"I don't really. I think it's a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess,"

If he was asked about Muslim terrorism and gave that response he would've been praised .

You cannot please the Trump haters. His answer was right on target, but that doesn't matter to them.

During a press conference Friday,Trump was asked if he sees " that white nationalism is a rising threat around the world?" His response was
"I don't really. I think it's a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess,"

If he was asked about Muslim terrorism and gave that response he would've been praised .


No he would, and it would be his normal tone deaf lying insult.


You cannot please the Trump haters. His answer was right on target, but that doesn't matter to them.

Only to the right wing noise machine that gorges on his lies like hungry ants at a picnic.

Only to the right wing noise machine that gorges on his lies like hungry ants at a picnic.

Just more TDS.

At least after this horrendous tragedy NZ will look to tighten already strict gun laws, unlike here where we give sympathy and prayers after mass shootings even if they are our kids.

At least after this horrendous tragedy NZ will look to tighten already strict gun laws, unlike here where we give sympathy and prayers after mass shootings even if they are our kids.
And arm "the good guys."

At least after this horrendous tragedy NZ will look to tighten already strict gun laws, unlike here where we give sympathy and prayers after mass shootings even if they are our kids.

I don't know where you get the idea NZ gun laws are tight, there are enough guns in NZ for one in 4 people so when you exclude children that means one per adult, there is no gun registration and assault style weapons such as your AR15 are permitted even foreign nationals can hold a permit.

Some of us understand that public safety comes before "freedom" to kill at will



And arm "the good guys."

all the good guys were armed and what good did it do them?

there is no gun registration and assault style weapons such as your AR15 are permitted even foreign nationals can hold a permit.

There is no registration, but there are permits? Sounds like two different ways to arrive at the same goal, which is government control.

I know of no country where there is freedom "to kill at will".


And arm "the good guys."

That would mean I get to keep my guns. Good plan!

Why we should be armed? 2 shot and 1 dead in Kentucky home invasion would help explain it.

Yeah, maybe that's all anyone can do is protect themselves at home, while the loonies run rampant at schools, churches, malls, restaurants, and movie theaters.

Yeah, maybe that's all anyone can do is protect themselves at home, while the loonies run rampant at schools, churches, malls, restaurants, and movie theaters.

Yes loonies you allow to have guns

Anybody, anywhere can get a gun if they want it. Even loonies.

WG: And arm "the good guys."

JL: That would mean I get to keep my guns. Good plan!
But sometimes "good guys" turn into "bad guys" because of mental illness, stressors, a personal tragedy. Methinks it would be best if we're armed with spitballs.

NZ has tighter gun laws than we have . So do the Dutch who had a mass shooting incident today. Here is the US the states with the strictest laws have the most shootings .

It obviously takes more than laws to deter bad human behavior.

exactly

Yes what it takes is to remove opportunity

Yes what it takes is to remove opportunity
There is no end to opportunities!

Some of us don't live with the same set of opportunities, and you know it feels a lot safer

Some of us don't live with the same set of opportunities, and you know it feels a lot safer
Opportunities aren't the problem. The mindset of the shooter is the problem.

I could be talked into tighter controls for gun purchases, if that is accompanied by tighter sentencing laws for gun criminals and some way to screen out people with serious mental problems.

In the meantime, the supposed anti-gun crowd in Hollywood continue to get rich by selling movies with, you guessed it, lots of gun violence.

some way to screen out people with serious mental problems.
That's not going far enough. Even a one-time disappointment -- guy gets fired or gets dumped by his girlfriend or is cockolded -- when he is debased in some way. How do we predict that and his reaction?

Bad guys with guns don't worry about rules or fair play so they pick the weakest at their most vulnerable moment to ambush them. That's why they are bad guys. At least they caught the guy in NZ. Hope they get the guy in the Netherlands. Small consolation for the loss of life.

I think this is a really complicated issue that goes beyond just gun control. Stopping evil psychopaths before they kill is darn near impossible unless you ban all guns period. Not holding my breathe for that because killers bent on killing will find a way. Making them pay is so inadequate. If they didn't care about the lives they took, they certainly don't care about their own life or a loss of freedom.

I think this is a really complicated issue that goes beyond just gun control. Stopping evil psychopaths before they kill is darn near impossible unless you ban all guns period.

The psychos are responsible for what, 1% of the homicides? The rest are committed by people who are sane, angry, and have no moral values.

If they didn't care about the lives they took, they certainly don't care about their own life or a loss of freedom.
That's why they don't devise an escape plan and end up getting shot by police. Or are so overwhelmed by shame or anger or hopelessness that they kill themselves.

Bad guys with guns don't worry about rules or fair play so they pick the weakest at their most vulnerable moment to ambush them. That's why they are bad guys. At least they caught the guy in NZ. Hope they get the guy in the Netherlands. Small consolation for the loss of life.

I think this is a really complicated issue that goes beyond just gun control. Stopping evil psychopaths before they kill is darn near impossible unless you ban all guns period. Not holding my breathe for that because killers bent on killing will find a way. Making them pay is so inadequate. If they didn't care about the lives they took, they certainly don't care about their own life or a loss of freedom.

Tal it isn't necessary to ban all guns. I think we have demonstrated that, you remove the weapons capable of mass slaughter. This is inconvenient for those merchants of death, the gun manufacturers, they have to confine themselves to the military. So the answer lies in restricting access to high powered weapons and explosives. I know terrorists are capable of using other devices, aircraft, vehicles but it really starts with not making it easy

I don't know Clete. A handgun with a large capacity clip can mow down a lot of people in a short time. Two clips and more will die. A killer can find what he wants and does, and no one is the wiser until he's done.

I don't know Clete. A handgun with a large capacity clip can mow down a lot of people in a short time. Two clips and more will die. A killer can find what he wants and does, and no one is the wiser until he's done.

Yes I know there are exotic handguns with rapid fire capibility, but make a start, go back to banning assault weapons and do the registration thing so sales are policed. You might just stop the odd crazy. You have the ability to go after the illegal market
Do it

It would seem an easy thing, but lawmakers must be pressed a LOT more before we can even have tighter background checks, which are popular with 7 in 10 Americans. Chicago has strict gun laws, but every city and small town around it has lax laws, if any.

It would seem an easy thing, but lawmakers must be pressed a LOT more before we can even have tighter background checks, which are popular with 7 in 10 Americans. Chicago has strict gun laws, but every city and small town around it has lax laws, if any.

And therein lies your problem, sold out by states rights. Surely you can have federal law that is enforceable or are you a nation of rebels

Yes I know there are exotic handguns with rapid fire capibility, but make a start, go back to banning assault weapons and do the registration thing so sales are policed.

Assault weapons are already banned.


And therein lies your problem, sold out by states rights. Surely you can have federal law that is enforceable or are you a nation of rebels.

There are many federal laws that are enforced, including one in the Constitution that provides for the ownership of guns. However, believing in liberty as we do, or at least used to do, we understand that an overbearing, ponderous central government is the enemy of liberty.

The subject at hand is how to prevent mass shootings. Got any ideas? What do you do about the liberty of innocent unarmed victims? If liberty is walking around with a gun, then we have that already.

The subject at hand is how to prevent mass shootings. Got any ideas? What do you do about the liberty of innocent unarmed victims? If liberty is walking around with a gun, then we have that already.

It really isn't as difficult as you think, but there is something in your thinking, your ethos, that prevents it. It is that the gun is sacrosanct. Your constitution is couched in such general terms that even lethal weapons are permitted, even weapons that could not have been conceived by those who wrote the constitution, in that day weapons were single shot. And so, as a consequence, you have these events. Cause and effect. In some other nations where the gun is not sacrosanct, such events are rare

Someone might want to consider why it is that these mass shooting incidents have grown so prevalent over the past twenty five years. We had LESS strict gun laws prior to that but basically no mass shootings. What has happened over the past 25 years that has caused this? It has nothing to do with "assault weapons". We've had guns for centuries. What changed?

Someone might want to consider why it is that these mass shooting incidents have grown so prevalent over the past twenty five years. We had LESS strict gun laws prior to that but basically no mass shootings. What has happened over the past 25 years that has caused this? It has nothing to do with "assault weapons". We've had guns for centuries. What changed?

It is a really good question, War. Your nation has been in a constant state of war, this causes disruption, many PTSD cases, families destroyed. People have anxiety, are distrustfull of others, and you have the immigrant problem adding to uncertainty, drugs, prison destroying lives, a police force that can no longer be trusted. All these factors lead to intolerance, frustration..

Trump tapped into it. people wanted something different, but he hasn't delivered, he can't

More loonies? More psychopaths? More criminals? More homicidal maniacs? We can't tell by looking can we?


It is a really good question, War. Your nation has been in a constant state of war, this causes disruption, many PTSD cases, families destroyed. People have anxiety, are distrustfull of others, and you have the immigrant problem adding to uncertainty, drugs, prison destroying lives, a police force that can no longer be trusted. All these factors lead to intolerance, frustration..

Trump tapped into it. people wanted something different, but he hasn't delivered, he can't

Well said.

It is a really good question, War. Your nation has been in a constant state of war, this causes disruption, many PTSD cases, families destroyed. People have anxiety, are distrustfull of others, and you have the immigrant problem adding to uncertainty, drugs, prison destroying lives, a police force that can no longer be trusted. All these factors lead to intolerance, frustration..

In the 40's we had WW2. In the 50's it was Korea. In the 60's it was Vietnam. In the 60's and 70's there was not a rash of mash shootings, so I don't think your war theory holds water.

I was in Texas in '66 when a loony massacred 14 people. I have seen assassinations of leaders and would be leaders. I have seen cops and army beating heads in the streets, and killing students on college campuses. You must not be paying much attention at the violence that has pervaded since the last world war.

Didn't you have a TV growing up?

Oh come on. Read a little. Do a little research. Learn something. Mass shootings are largely something from the past twenty years. Again, 15 minutes on the internet would have shown you that.

Behold: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3664ccf32e4

Looks to me like an old problem has greatly escalated and we have done nothing about it. What did we do then? What do you think the causes of these mass shootings are? Don't you suspect these events were in large part predictable? Here at least but it's not exclusive just to us.

I would give you links but following them would be a lot more than a few minutes.

We have disposed of our moral bearings. We used to have the Ten Commandments, for instance, posted in our public schools. We used to pray in our public schools. Those acknowledgements of God were, in my view, very persuasive in convincing students they should follow a particular moral code. Now it's just every man for himself, and the results are predictable.

Far more disturbing than mass shootings are the thousands and thousands of homicides committed every year. No one had a more dramatic impact on that than former Mayor Giuliana in New York City. Maybe we should examine what he did.

I've always wondered about the tablet of commandments Moses broke in anger. What did we miss? Would you be open to prayer in school that was not of the Christian teachings for non Christian students? When others of different faiths religion or moral teaching are excluded then every man for himself is an inevitable outcome, and is public education the correct forum for teaching moral behavior, or do the parents have that responsibility.

As to crime and order...https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-new-york-became-safe-full-story-13197.html it still takes a village.

Best quote from the story. "Clearly, Giuliani and Bratton were heroes in reclaiming public spaces." Truth is, it never happened until Giuliani became mayor. The change was dramatic. The moral of the story is to elect republican mayors.

Takes a village? No, it takes intact, healthy families. Does the village have a place in things? Yes, but it cannot take the place of family.

As to public schools, the prayer in New York state which the Supreme Court used to end prayer in schools was as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country." Do you see anything offensive in that? I am convinced that if we had been praying that prayer in every school in America the past fifty years, we would have a very much different country.

As to public schools, the prayer in New York state which the Supreme Court used to end prayer in schools was as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country." Do you see anything offensive in that? I am convinced that if we had been praying that prayer in every school in America the past fifty years, we would have a very much different country.I attended a public school in NC during the early '50s. We had Bible verse competitions, sang hymns, and prayed together. There still were schoolyard bullies, pregnant teen girls whose female family members helped them abort, a pecking order by which the kids on the bottom rung were shunned or at least picked on. If human behavior has gotten worse, it's not from lack of prayer in school but because the Internet and social media have given kids all sorts of new ways to be unkind.

I attended a public school in NC during the early '50s. We had Bible verse competitions, sang hymns, and prayed together. There still were schoolyard bullies, pregnant teen girls whose female family members helped them abort, a pecking order by which the kids on the bottom rung were shunned or at least picked on. If human behavior has gotten worse, it's not from lack of prayer in school but because the Internet and social media have given kids all sorts of new ways to be unkind.

Please tell me you are not trying to suggest that out of wedlock births, drug use, and violent behavior have not spiraled up greatly since the 1950's.

"If human behavior has gotten worse." Are you kidding? It's the most easy development to document I can imagine.

All of this was well under way far before the internet and social media became widespread. You're kidding yourself.

BTW, I'm not in favor of public schools becoming branches of evangelical churches. I understand that many parents do not send their children to school to hear the Bible being read, but I do suspect there must be a middle ground between that and what we have now.

Pretty good quote on this subject.

"You see, it matters whether people around the world understand these ancient stories. It deeply matters. We are becoming unmoored, because we no longer share the structure these stories undergird. This is psychologically destabilizing. It’s producing a pathological and desperate nihilism that is increasingly common and, at the same time, a pronounced proclivity for the ideological certainty that mimics but cannot replace true religious belief. Both consequences are bound to be, as the evidence certainly indicates, divisive and truly dangerous."

Pretty good quote on this subject.

"You see, it matters whether people around the world understand these ancient stories. It deeply matters. We are becoming unmoored, because we no longer share the structure these stories undergird. This is psychologically destabilizing. It’s producing a pathological and desperate nihilism that is increasingly common and, at the same time, a pronounced proclivity for the ideological certainty that mimics but cannot replace true religious belief. Both consequences are bound to be, as the evidence certainly indicates, divisive and truly dangerous."


Philosophy will get you nowhere, but New Zealand has found the moral imperative, lives are worth more than guns. They will remove assault weapons and semi automatics, pity it took the death of many for someone to get a backbone Let us hope that other nations will see what it takes, because guns do kill and the absence of guns kill no one

Philosophy will get you nowhere, but New Zealand has found the moral imperative, lives are worth more than guns.

Strange. You say that philosophy will get us nowhere, but then you make the philosophical statement that lives are worth more than guns. Now that is also a moral statement based upon the concept of life found in the Bible. Either that, or it's merely an opinion and therefore next to worthless. You can't have it both ways. Without realizing it, you have validated the quote I posted which, by the way, is not my own quote.

I don't know if it was a moral imperative or just plan fear but whatever moved NZ to act decisively and quickly should be applauded. They got it sooner rather than later before many more such tragedies. I lost count of ours years ago. We have a right here in the US to bear arms, and though technology has evolved guns beyond our wildest dreams we still have that right. Does that mean guns cannot be regulated like anything else in America, I don't think so, and in light of the many deaths and abuses of that right, one has to question the moral imperative of our leaders to act on that premise.

The most compelling argument is most Americans approve of those regulations to guns so you have to wonder what our problem is? I think we have leaders elected though they be who think money trumps any moral imperative, and prayers and sympathy is sufficient to address the problem.

We have not been able to buy fully automatic weapons for decades now, so beyond that, what else would you propose? If you want to ban the so-called "assault weapons", would you advocate that those already purchased and owned be confiscated by the government?

More semantics with the auto/semi auto argument. The difference is to small to even consider, but to answer your question many localities are implementing and give law enforcement the authority to confiscate the guns of those that show signs or give cause for concern of public safety. I see no need for wholesale confiscation of guns but shouldn't private sellers submit the documents and buyers have a background check? Yes I do advocate for that.

I live in Texas remember, and gun shows are everywhere all the time.

More semantics with the auto/semi auto argument. The difference is to small to even consider, but to answer your question many localities are implementing and give law enforcement the authority to confiscate the guns of those that show signs or give cause for concern of public safety. I see no need for wholesale confiscation of guns but shouldn't private sellers submit the documents and buyers have a background check? Yes I do advocate for that.

The difference is so large that autos are basically illegal (and demanded by the military) while semis are legal and in widespread use. Semantics?? You need to read more.

I think your suggestion of getting guns out of the hands of those who "show signs or give cause for concern of public safety" has some merit, but only if a judge is involved. The problem is in how to make that determination. If a young man is a gang member and has a gun, do you confiscate it? The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?

Please tell me you are not trying to suggest that out of wedlock births, drug use, and violent behavior have not spiraled up greatly since the 1950's.
Yes, because there are a few more people in existence since then. And prayer in school, then and now, doesn't stop bad behavior. Back in the '50s, grade teachers who encouraged prayers, for all sorts of reasons, slapped kids with rulers or whatever was handy, tied them to their desks, and spanked them in front of the class. I couldn't wait to get to school each day....


The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?
The seriously mentally too often stop taking the meds they were prescribed ("Wow! I feel great! I must be cured and don't need these pills anymore!") That's when their guns become a problem.

And you don't have to be mentally ill to kill. A cheating wife or the death of a loved one or a job loss are just a few issues that can turn someone into a killer, even a mass murderer.

The difference is so large that autos are basically illegal (and demanded by the military) while semis are legal and in widespread use. Semantics?? You need to read more.

No you need to read more as a simple Google search can show you how simple it is. Buying a semi auto gun legally and modify it, illegal as that may be, is a straight shot to mayhem. Even if you have a legal semi auto mayhem is easy in the wrong hands. As lierally as you take your own bible, you should know that intent, and nuance are crucial keys to understanding. Yes your semantics are inadequate and comes with a wink and a nod.


I think your suggestion of getting guns out of the hands of those who "show signs or give cause for concern of public safety" has some merit, but only if a judge is involved. The problem is in how to make that determination. If a young man is a gang member and has a gun, do you confiscate it? The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?

How about confiscation by the law, and then get the judge? A young fellow with no criminal record and not part of a criminal database can buy a gun whether he is a gang member or not already. A simple waiver at the point of sale can also give access to sellers for medical records and is done all the time for doctors, hospitals, credit reporting, and credit collectors employed by everybody.

I think the problem is more manpower, technology, and language than anything else. Like Clete says just do it. This is a challenge we can rise to and overcome the obstacles to achieve. There is a way, and the real question would be why have we not done it yet?

and comes with a wink and a nod.

Wow. What a prejudiced statement. You think you are able to read those things into my statements? You must think you are a god. At any rate, to suggest that there is no difference between autos and semi-autos is just ridiculous. The rest of the world knows better.


How about confiscation by the law, and then get the judge? A young fellow with no criminal record and not part of a criminal database can buy a gun whether he is a gang member or not already. A simple waiver at the point of sale can also give access to sellers for medical records and is done all the time for doctors, hospitals, credit reporting, and credit collectors employed by everybody.

You can try that, but you will get more opposition from liberal dems than from conservatives, especially when it comes to asking the mentally ill to sign over access to their medical records. I think the idea has some merit, but it's dead in the water with the democrat party.

For a policeman to just walk up and confiscate someone's private property, in this case a gun, what would the policeman need to observe in order to do that? Should they be able to do that with cars and computers as well, or just with guns?

Any gunsmith would tell you what I have told you, but obviously you didn't bother to check it out. Or the source of your information is flawed.

Any gunsmith will tell me that autos and semi-autos are the same gun?? Nah. They will not do that. Can you convert a semi-auto to auto? Yes. Can you convert a hardtop car to a convertible? Yes, but no one would say that makes them the same kind of car.

For the sake of mayhem and death your argument is irrelevant. A gun is a gun, and it's the bad guy that's relevant. To be honest and sad to admit the only answer, SOMETIMES with luck, is a good guy with a gun present. I guess to own a business, attend a church, or movie, and send your kids to school, you need a full security squad on duty.

For the sake of mayhem and death your argument is irrelevant. A gun is a gun, and it's the bad guy that's relevant. To be honest and sad to admit the only answer, SOMETIMES with luck, is a good guy with a gun present. I guess to own a business, attend a church, or movie, and send your kids to school, you need a full security squad on duty.

We have heard this argument over an over, it is the person that is bad and the gun is the victim. Not true, without the gun, the bad guys finds it harder to kill, particularly to kill in large numbers. Military style weapons belong in the hands of the military and we should not be victimised by some Bullshlt reading of your constitution

We have heard this argument over an over, it is the person that is bad and the gun is the victim. Not true, without the gun, the bad guys finds it harder to kill, particularly to kill in large numbers. Military style weapons belong in the hands of the military and we should not be victimised by some Bullshlt reading of your constitution

Actually, in our country, the large numbers come from "ordinary" homicides, far and away. Banning the so called "assault weapons", which are actually not assault weapons, would do practically nothing to reduce homicides. It would only make liberals feel a little better. I'm convinced that you could ban all semi-auto weapons and you'd still have a gun problem relative to homicides. Again, you have to ask the question, why is it that mass shootings have become so much more prevalent the past thirty or so years? Answer that question and you will start to find the answer to the problem.

Don't underestimate a loony Clete. They care nothing about the law, just their own homicidal dillusions. Laws only stop the law abiding. Kudos to NZ for making a new law so quickly. Everyone else is in shock still I would imagine. At least NZ acted, which is more than I can say for my own tribe. Heck it took two years after the Vegas massacre to outlaw bump stocks. A simple device that any nerd can fabricate.

Actually, in our country, the large numbers come from "ordinary" homicides, far and away. Banning the so called "assault weapons", which are actually not assault weapons, would do practically nothing to reduce homicides. It would only make liberals feel a little better. I'm convinced that you could ban all semi-auto weapons and you'd still have a gun problem relative to homicides. Again, you have to ask the question, why is it that mass shootings have become so much more prevalent the past thirty or so years? Answer that question and you will start to find the answer to the problem.

Homicidal loonies can get a gun. They prefer ones with more bang for the buck and are easy to get.

Simplistic, knee-jerk answers won't accomplish much. In addition to the question I asked above, here's another one that needs to be answered. Young black men account for about half of the homicides in our country, so 2-3% of the population is committing 50% of the homicides. Why is that the case? I can guarantee you it is not because of "military style weapons" or bump stocks. Why is that the case? I don't know, but someone needs to find out.

And no, that is not a racist observation. Just the simple truth.

I guess you are editing your post.

Simplistic, knee-jerk answers won't accomplish much. In addition to the question I asked above, here's another one that needs to be answered. Young black men account for about half of the homicides in our country, so 2-3% of the population is committing 50% of the homicides. Why is that the case? I can guarantee you it is not because of "military style weapons" or bump stocks. Why is that the case? I don't know, but someone needs to find out.

And no, that is not a racist observation. Just the simple truth.

I could answer but the answer would be branded racism

I could answer, but it may be considered racist.

I prefer my version

And here is a big problem. It's a situation that needs to be fixed but no one wants to venture there.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/170/17076/1707690.gif
There's your problem.

Says the man who was fine with Obama's 9 tril of red ink.

And prayer in school, then and now, doesn't stop bad behavior. Back in the '50s, grade teachers who encouraged prayers, for all sorts of reasons, slapped kids with rulers or whatever was handy, tied them to their desks, and spanked them in front of the class. I couldn't wait to get to school each day.... and schools had gun clubs and guns were routinely brought onto school property without mass shootings.


Almost every hunter in America uses semi-automatic weapons . Good luck with your ban attempts .

Almost every hunter in America uses semi-automatic weapons

And they don't go out and shoot each other. Wonder why? Another good question that should be answered.

Dude, that's a simple as a law abiding citizen, and a homicidal loony.

And yet you would remove the guns from the law abiders? Curious indeed.

I would hate too, but can you tell the difference?

Almost every hunter in America uses semi-automatic weapons . Good luck with your ban attempts .

And do you think the hunter in NZ don't, not a reason not to ban the weapons

Leave the law-abiders alone. Even if you get rid of the "assault weapons", there are plenty of other weapons to be used. And you haven't touched the real problem which is the thousands of homicides every year which are not a part of mass killings and typically involve handguns.

Not too sure how we can bemoan mass shootings while cheering for late term abortions. All a part of the cheapening of human life.

Es we live in a strange world but they worry about the seen, not the unseen

Not too sure how we can bemoan mass shootings while cheering for late term abortions. All a part of the cheapening of human life.
Easy solution -- a vasectomy for every man unless he has been designated a sperm donor.

Easy solution -- a vasectomy for every man unless he has been designated a sperm donor.

So much for the human race.

Of course an even easier solution would be to reserve sex for marriage. No surgery required!!

Es we live in a strange world but they worry about the seen, not the unseen



What is our role in all this? How many people viewed in (the live feed) on this before it was taken offline.
Why take it offline? It's an easy fix. Stop blasting it all over the news!
News media thrives on this sh*t, people thrive on this sh*t.

So much for the human race.
I said, "except for designated sperm donors." There are too many people in the world now. We're polluting ourselves into oblivion.


Of course an even easier solution would be to reserve sex for marriage. No surgery required!!
Nope. If women are prevented from getting an abortion, then the obvious solution is to prevent men from getting us pregnant in the first place. That will solve the problem.

Easy solution -- a vasectomy for every man unless he has been designated a sperm donor.

There is a reason why there are equivalent numbers of men and women, diversity is important




Nope. If women are prevented from getting an abortion, then the obvious solution is to prevent men from getting us pregnant in the first place. That will solve the problem.

I thought we tried that, the PILL but there is another way, stop having sex just for the sake of it

There is a reason why there are equivalent numbers of men and women, diversity is important
That makes no sense with what I said.

I thought we tried that, the PILL but there is another way, stop having sex just for the sake of it
The vasectomy would solve all the problems! Then we all could have sex anytime we wanted to, day or night, with no worries about conceiving. You guys should jump at the chance!

Nope. If women are prevented from getting an abortion, then the obvious solution is to prevent men from getting us pregnant in the first place. That will solve the problem.

Is this meant to be taken seriously? "Prevent men from getting us pregnant." Last time I checked, not having sex would do that very thing. If you don't want to get pregnant, then take the pill or avoid sex. How is this so difficult other than you don't want women to have to shoulder any responsibility?

Rats! Our period of agreement seems to have come to an end. Oh well.

You might have to wait awhile.



Sex robots: Experts debate the rise of the love droids


In the next 10 years it is perfectly achievable in software to create a robot companion that is everything that people might want in a spouse - patient, kind, loving, trusting, respectful and uncomplaining.

Is this meant to be taken seriously? "Prevent men from getting us pregnant." Last time I checked, not having sex would do that very thing. If you don't want to get pregnant, then take the pill or avoid sex. How is this so difficult other than you don't want women to have to shoulder any responsibility?

Rats! Our period of agreement seems to have come to an end. Oh well.
Hey! When I'm challenged, I don't just lie down and give up. (Neither do you.).

So when we say no, that will be accepted without question, and no attempts will be made to change our minds? Then, voila! no more abortions!

So when we say no, that will be accepted without question, and no attempts will be made to change our minds? Then, voila! no more abortions!

People try to talk us into doing something stupid all the time. I thought women were supposed to be strong? Well, it's time to put that into action. I never cease to be amazed at how many problems would be solved if women would insist on protecting themselves through marriage. And yes, men need to stop acting like pigs.

I never cease to be amazed at how many problems would be solved if women would insist on protecting themselves through marriage.

Married women get abortions. What does marriage have to do with this discussion?

How about this? Each man donates his sperm to a local sperm bank, then gets a vasectomy. When he marries and the couple wants a baby, after counseling they go to the sperm bank and get his sperm that she's artificially inseminated with. Few, if any, abortions will be done.

No sperm = no babies that could be in danger of being aborted.

Married women are much less likely to have an abortion. For every 1,000 live births there are 510 abortions for unmarried women, but that drops to 61 abortions for every 1,000 live births for married women.

Come on. Your idea is not workable. Why would we want to start such a complicated and invasive plan when a simple return to basic moral values and common sense would solve the problem? At any rate, I am assuming you intend it as a joke. Still, you perplex me. As someone who is a confessing Christian, it puzzles me why you pass on opportunities to agree and say, "Yeah, let's try doing things God's way." Strange.

Go to church this morning. Worship the Lord. Have a great day!

Married women, or single for that matter, that are aware, have the means, visit a OB/GYN as needed and make SURE they are not pregnant. Do you consider those in office procedures to be an abortion? Seldom is this made public except with the closet of friends and even husbands may not know of the results or outcomes of their doctor visits.

I should also include if a guy is old enough to have sex, then he is old enough to be responsible and AWARE of what those responsibilities include. They didn't have condoms in ancient times, but they had prostitutes, and females that were sexually active, and many aware of how to avoid pregnancy, despite the religious taboos of the times.

Come on. Your idea is not workable. Why would we want to start such a complicated and invasive plan when a simple return to basic moral values and common sense would solve the problem? At any rate, I am assuming you intend it as a joke.
No, I don't intend it as a joke. It's not complicated, and if you want invasive, try being pregnant for nine months!

You've raged about women who have had sex with men, his sperm got them pregnant, she didn't want a child (just the love he gave her), and therefore got an abortion. So, if we take the sperm out of the equation, there won't be abortions, and babies will be conceived when both parties agree to pregnancy. Moral values and common sense don't prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Eliminating sperm until it's needed to produce a baby solves all sorts of problems!

if we take the sperm out of the equation, there won't be abortions, and babies will be conceived when both parties agree to pregnancy. Moral values and common sense don't prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Eliminating sperm until it's needed to produce a baby solves all sorts of problems!



…And create many other problems


Abortion will always be an option.

…And create many other problems


Abortion will always be an option.


Like, create what problems? (Jlisenbe wants to ban all abortions, thus this part of the thread.)

…And create many other problems


Abortion will always be an option.



Mandatory vasectomies at birth? Or at puberty? How about condoms 2 for a buck in every bathroom? What! They don't sell them in public bathrooms any more? I have seem them in gas stations though.

What's in your wallet?

I remember the exploding heads when schools tried to give them away free.

It's sad to me to read your pro-abortion posts. There was a day when women were the foremost defenders of children. They stood for life. That day has evidently come and gone. Very unfortunate, and rather than advocate for the Biblical position of sex within marriage, you have come up with a nonsensical idea to have all men have a vasectomy and store their sperm in sperm banks. Wow. It's hard to know how to respond to that. It's on the level of AOC's New Green Deal.

Why wouldn't you side with the position of the Bible?

It's sad to me to read your pro-abortion posts. There was a day when women were the foremost defenders of children. They stood for life. That day has evidently come and gone. Very unfortunate, and rather than advocate for the Biblical position of sex within marriage, you have come up with a nonsensical idea to have all men have a vasectomy and store their sperm in sperm banks. Wow. It's hard to know how to respond to that. It's on the level of AOC's New Green Deal.

Why wouldn't you side with the position of the Bible?
How do you prevent conception? Birth control doesn't always work. I know of women who have used THREE forms of birth control, yet still got pregnant. Not every baby conceived, even in marriage, is wanted. Then what? My grandmother ended up with 13 children, two of whom died at birth. JL, birth control for men seems to be the better solution. Or an emphatic "no sex, thank you" from women.

Moral values and common sense don't prevent an unwanted pregnancy.


If not for Moral values, what might prevent unwanted pregnancies?

"Unwanted pregnancies" = Teen pregnancies.


It cannot be fixed without a general reassessment of the attitudes and mores regarding adolescent sexuality in the U.S.

I know of women who have used THREE forms of birth control, yet still got pregnant. Not every baby conceived, even in marriage, is wanted. Then what?

Yes. I get your point. You are saying that killing the baby is definitely the way to go. I think you like to hide that fact under a load of rhetoric, but the unhappy truth remains.

Yes. I get your point. You are saying that killing the baby is definitely the way to go. I think you like to hide that fact under a load of rhetoric, but the unhappy truth remains.
No, i'm NOT saying that. I'm asking you. Does the wife, now having to raise an unwanted child, say no to her husband (and move to a different bedroom?) so she doesn't get pregnant again?

No, i'm NOT saying that. I'm asking you. Does the wife, now having to raise an unwanted child, say no to her husband (and move to a different bedroom?) so she doesn't get pregnant again?

That can be a difficult question, no doubt, but the alternative is to kill the baby, so you have to decide if you think that is OK. You refuse to take a stand against it, preferring to post difficult but extremely rare scenarios.

That can be a difficult question, no doubt, but the alternative is to kill the baby, so you have to decide if you think that is OK. You refuse to take a stand against it, preferring to post difficult but extremely rare scenarios.
"Extremely rare"????? You don't get out much or at least don't talk to many women. Okay, I'm finished with this. And no, I'm not in favor of abortion.

I get that. I do believe you care for people. I'd like to see you firmer in your belief, but you'd probably like to see me more compassionate, so that's fine.

I get that. I do believe you care for people. I'd like to see you firmer in your belief, but you'd probably like to see me more compassionate, so that's fine.
Firmer in my belief?

We've talked it to death. I get irritated with myself for getting too intense in these discussions. I am opposed to abortion as it involves the taking of a human life. I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, but it's not for me to point fingers.