[speechlesstx]

Family values is code for MY family values are correct, and YOURS is wicked. Its not a lack of definition, its an imposition of definitions thats the problem. Now everyone takes their INDIVIDUAL rights as absolute, written in stone, no changes, or variations according to the rights of anyone else.

It gives the strong license to subjugate the weak in the name of defending those rights.

Bullsh*, I have no code words. Kids overwhelmingly fare much better when they have a mother and a father - which also happens to be how children come about in the first place. Feminism said women don't need men, the sexual revolution said people don't need commitment, secular humanism said we don't need God, the liberal education system said we don't need standards or discipline. After all we can't hurt little Johnny's feelings by giving him a grade or making him behave.

And now you have reaped what you've sown and instead of promoting what we know works, you want government programs that don't. You think the answer is gay marriage, gay adoption, "alternative lifestyles", "family planning", free birth control, paid maternity leave, childcare, "comprehensive sex education" (some nice code words in there), anything but promoting the nuclear family.

The only one imposing definitions is you, along with subjugating the weak by making them dependent on government instead helping them thrive on their own.

[talaniman]

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

What's wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)

[NeedKarma]

The 1800's must have been great days since your republicans want to return you there.

[speechlesstx]

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

Whats wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)

Facts are hate speech? No sir, they speak for themselves. Your side created this mess and has no answers but to subject us all to a government nanny.

The 1800's must have been great days since your republicans want to return you there.

NK, how unoriginal and devoid of reality can you get? Never mind, I don't want to know. You and Tal are not up to having an honest debate, you only seek to demonize and divide.

[talaniman]

Now speech you know good and well I can throw rocks and talk crap with the best of them. :) It shouldn't surprise you or make you mad when I do what you do.

[NeedKarma]

you only seek to demonize and divide.

Everything I've learned is learned from the AMHD Current Event board.
Tell me: is it your opinion that you do not demonize and divide? Lead by example!

[speechlesstx]

Everything I've learned is learned from the AMHD Current Event board.
Tell me: is it your opinion that you do not demonize and divide? Lead by example!

I'm trying to have an honest discussion, I'm not the one calling that "hate speech."

And why does Tal keep combining my posts?

[talaniman]

I'm trying to have an honest discussion, I'm not the one calling that "hate speech."

And why does Tal keep combining my posts?

It is hate speech to me and I am entitled to my opinion, and you get honest from me when I post, whether its right or wrong is up to you. Letme know and we can argue that too!

As for merging posts it's a routine thing to do to make it not only uniform, but easier to quote and reply to. You are not the only one, its done all over the site.

[speechlesstx]

I replied to two different people, they SHOULD be separate posts, and if you think stating the fact that children fare better with a mother and a father is hate speech you shouldn't have that much control.

[cdad]

What would you advise to laid off/unemployed divorced people?

The job creators sure ain't helping them.So what should they do in a tight job market where there are hundreds of applicants for one job.

You blame feminist for females expressing themselves and working on their behalf. Does your wife work?

Gay people ARE people to, just like corporations are, why exclude them in the equal protection under the law? Why can't they have rights like everybody else?

Whats wrong with daycare if a female has to work and has kids without a responsible partner? Your idea of helping people isn't help. Your entire post is about discriminating against the less fortunate, or those you hate.

Consider it dismissed as hate speech. (No pun intended)

If the job creators are the "rich" and the government takes away all their wealth through taxation then how do you expect them to hire anyone?

What I blame feminists for is for demonizing choice. They ridiculed the preverbial housewife and demeaned them in public statements. They also were subverted in early days by the CIA.

Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society

Is there a reason to give gays superior rights because of sexual preferences? What would be next? What if its proved the pedophiles are born that way ? Does that make it OK or is it not the acceptable "norm" at this time?

[tomder55]

As for merging posts it's a routine thing to do to make it not only uniform, but easier to quote and reply to. You are not the only one, its done all over the site.

Why is it being done on a discussion forum ?

[smoothy]

[Wondergirl]

The vast majority of gun owners are not maniacs. The vast majority are not planning on shooting their girlfriends, wives, or partners. But in a fit of anger or jealousy or some other overwhelming emotion, a gun can become a convenient way of lashing out. The decision to shoot can take a second, and then can't be undone. It happens every day in this country. These are the sad facts of life.

The many thousands of people who bought guns after the Connecticut massacre deem themselves to be just as responsible as gun enthusiast [in the last issue of The Week, author Sam] Harris. Most are — but take a step back. As the Harvard School of Public Health found, "guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime." Oh, and on city streets too by gang members and such like.

And

The handgun is easily the most convenient and most common choice for the loaded man wanting a loaded gun — the combination that causes so much terror in America every single day. It is the crux of the issue. Regardless of our position on the issue, we must squarely acknowledge that America would dramatically reduce killing in general and fatal domestic violence in particular if we dramatically reduced access to handguns.

Why more guns won't make us safer - The Week

[smoothy]

Less guns don't make us any safer either... look at Chicago and NYC as two shining examples...

People are LESS safe because the criminals act with the knowledge they are unlikely to meet an armed potiential victim there.

And most murders aren't committed with guns.

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1 select sort by rate, decending... see how many places are far worse than the USA.

That covers ALL murders... since dead is dead no matter how its done. It's a more accurate description.

[Wondergirl]

It will come as no surprise to most people that men commit homicide 10 times as often as women. Their victims are often women. Two thirds of women killed by spouses are killed with guns. Firearm assaults on female family members and intimate acquaintances are approximately 12 times more likely to result in death than are assaults using other weapons. This is not some minor secondary issue. It is the heart of the matter — a form of chronic and pervasive domestic terrorism. It is impossible to claim to address gun violence in America while failing to address domestic violence against women. Why more guns won't make us safer - The Week

According to this, guns ARE the main method of killing in the US.

[smoothy]

So... and what does that have to do with the price of rice in China.

Why don't you rely on statistics for people burned at the stake when comparing to actual murder rates? Think nobody ever gets killed without a gun being used... and if they can't get a gun nobody will ever be killed. Fact is they will pick something else that's handy to use... knife, baseball bat, 2X4.. pieace of pipe... bowling trophy...

If you don't compare ACTUAL per capita murder rates... exclusive of method used... then you are creating a circular argument based on flawed source data.

Using the numbers YOU want to use... look at CHicago and NYC vs the rest of the country...

And they already did make guns effectively illegal there...

Heck... Washington DC murder rates DROPPED after the supreme court ruled their gun laws unconstitutional... the thugs no longer can expect victims to be unarmed... and more often they aren't.

[speechlesstx]

"guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime[/I]

That's a rather misleading statement. From the survey...

In the US, guns, particularly handguns, are typically brought into the home for protection. The wisdom of having a firearm in the home, however, is disputed. While guns appear to be a risk factor for family homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm fatality, no evidence has been available about gun use at home to intimidate family members and little about gun use to thwart crimes by intruders, or about the use of other weapons in home self-defense. Over the past decade, various private surveys have asked questions about the respondent's use of guns in self-defense. None, however, has asked detailed questions about the use of guns to threaten or intimidate the respondent. This study presents results from a national random digit dial telephone survey of 1906 US adults conducted in the spring of 1996. Respondents were asked about hostile gun displays and use of guns and other weapons in self-defense at home in the past five years. The objective of the survey was to assess the relative frequency and characteristics of weapons-related events at home. Thirteen respondents reported that a gun was displayed against them at home, two reported using a gun in self-defense at home, and 24 reported using another weapon (e.g. knife, baseball bat) in home self-defense. While we do not always know whose weapon was used in these incidents, most gun brandishings were by male intimates against women. A gun in the home can be used against family members or intruders and can be used not only to kill and wound, but to intimidate and frighten. This small study provides some evidence that guns may be used at least as often by family members to frighten intimates as to thwart crime, and that other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Out of 1906 people, 13 - .682 percent - said a gun was used to intimidate them. I wonder how many were intimidated by another weapon?

[tomder55]

If I thought gun control laws would make a difference ,I'd reconsider.. But Hadiya Pendleton ,a girl who performed at the Obama Inauguration was gunned down in Chi-town ,a town with some of the toughest gun laws in the land . Her death was random chance as a gangbanger fired into a crowd. The gun laws did not prevent this tragedy... and Chi-town is settting a pace for a record numbers of gun related homicides.
The only reason this even made the news is because Hadiya was a performer at the inauguration. What happened to her is an almost daily event in Chi-town . If tough gun laws would've prevented this it would've .

[smearcase]

From my summary of breakdowns of info at census.gov :

For 2009
13,756 total murders
9,203 by firearms
4,553 by non-firearms comprised of knives or cutting instruments (1,836), blunt objects (623), personal weapons incl. hands, fists, feet, pushing etc (815), other (374) poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, asphyxiation and others (905)--suspected of being poison etc that can't be determined.

If I had to be the victim and had a choice, I'd take the firearm. Maybe narcotics would be easy for some, but the others would be varying amounts of suffering for sure. But a poor shot could cause suffering too, I'll admit.

[Wondergirl]

Out of 1906 people, 13 - .682 percent - said a gun was used to intimidate them.

There have been three instances at my house where a handgun was misused, but none were reported. I wonder how many others in other homes have not been reported.