1. Faith schools may be Blair's most damaging legacy

Comment #241627 by Broshiesq on September 2, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Yeah, right? The framers in America 220 years ago were smarter about religion and government than the British pols of today. Too bad the general population in the US today is so fucked, though. Good thing it's not easy to change the constitution.

2. 'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

Comment #241614 by Broshiesq on September 2, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Um, yeah Andrew, I'm glad you said that, cause I was beginning to think it was just me, and that maybe I shouldn't have had that last hit.

3. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240596 by Broshiesq on August 31, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Whenever I see Carlin and shit in the same sentence, it reminds me of his bit on shit: You ever notice how other people's stuff is shit, and your shit is stuff. Hey, get your shit outta here so I can put my stuff down!

Good stuff. Good shit, too. Dane Cook would need to do 10 times the drugs Carlin did to attempt to be 1/10 as funny.

4. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240576 by Broshiesq on August 31, 2008 at 3:50 pm

debacles: …but simply because humor is subjective.

Humor is neither completely subjective nor completely objective. I would bet a whole lot of dough that there is a correlation between intelligence and discriminating taste concerning humor. Simply put, what I find to be not funny tends to nevertheless appeal to those who, in my opinion of course, simply aren't very bright.

debacles: For something to be funny, you need one person to think so. That is all.

That is not very bright. Really. Unless you were trying to be funny, in which case you could probably find one person in the world that would laugh, but that still wouldn't make it so.

Colbert should be judged by how good he is off the cuff, not by how he delivers his canned humor. Most people can simply deliver a well written joke. Colbert has become too over the top, a caricature of himself. This bit was sorely lacking.

5. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240125 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 11:36 pm

MPhil, yeah, so vote for the dems, so that hopefully you are taxed so much that you can't afford a car, so you don't have to worry about being ridden off the road by the repubs. Wait, that won't work. The dems will decree that everyone deserves a car and has the "right" to own a car, and so will make sure that tax money is raised and alloted to fund a program that will put a car in every garage. But as everyone doesn't have a garage, it must first be decreed that everyone has the "right" to a garage... This is known as the "redistribution" of wealth, which is a euphemism for "take my shit and give it to the the other guy. Repeat as necessary."

6. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240105 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Laurie, a humorist and columnist here once put it this way: if you were stalled on the side of the road with car trouble, the republicans would pass you by because they're on their way to the fancy pants convention. The democrats would stop to help, but they would end up blowing up your car.

7. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240090 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 10:00 pm

TIKI AL, neatly done. When I see McCain-Palin, I can't help but picture Michael Palin from A Fish Called Wanda trying to say the name of the hotel: McCaaaa McCaaaaaww

8. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240072 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Mitchell, I have appreciated many of your comments on this site, but let me point out how silly your post sounded: McCain is pandering to woman voters by choosing a woman vp candidate. This is a despicable act and is an insult to all women. Hopefully all the women realize this and purposely vote against the ticket with the female.

I'm still laughing at that one.

9. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240069 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 8:48 pm

J Mac, I'm not uptight. Stupid comments just piss me off. Ask Richard about the whole "raising consciousness" thing, he might be nice enough to explain it again to those of you too dense to get it right the first time. J Mac, my making the women-as-predictable comment was, as Laurie might say, jocular, as that is a stereotype. Your calling a vp candidate uglier than a polar bear is not being funny, because you know it has no relevance to her, or any other candidate's position on the issues. That's why you're (admittedly) a jerk. Oh, and the abortion line, that was from one of George Carlin's routines. I didn't attribute cause I thought the reference would be so obvious that any moron would...

10. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240062 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 8:23 pm

J Mac, I wasn't trying to be witty, don't try me, you'd be outgunned, just offering a sincere comment on your comment. No I didn't recognize that quote. So what? Boy, you really are an asshole. How's this, if you're going to be chauvinistic, try to be funny, instead of just saying you think someone's ugly. Like: you ever notice how all the women who are against abortion are the ones you wouldn't want to fuck anyway?

11. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240051 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 7:59 pm

J Mac: Go hang out at a bar... when they get drunk enough SOMEONE will end up hitting on even you.

Um, I don't know about that, have you seen my picture? For some reason, the ladies don't think I have the right "look."

12. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240043 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Alright, J Mac, the success with which you were blessed in not ending your sentence like I did, I must admit, was pretty funny. So, I'll leave you alone now. Switching to the other side of the aisle, my slogan for the upcoming election is: "Obama is Whack" Anyone get that?

13. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240037 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Ha Ha, J Mac, IF that's true, it just proves even more how much of a malaka you are. I knew someone would avoid the issue (what an dick you are for commenting on the supposed looks of a female political candidate!) and instead defend against my (kinda irrelevant) purposeful insult by claiming that you've dated (past tense not surprising) gorgeous women (who cares?) I thought it was women who were supposed to be the more predictable gender.

14. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240025 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Ok, her opposition to gay-marriage may be up in the air and she apparently is seriously deluded when it comes to religion like (unfortunately) shitloads of other people in the usa, but you guys that are commenting on her looks are, to put it mildly, absolute dipshits. Fucking smug as you so are (and as I am) about being "smart" enough to realize there's no god, you're still so pathetically boorish as to comment on the appearanceof a woman running for public office? To top it off, you're probably wrong anywayabout her attractiveness. I'd bet, sight unseen, she (or any runner-up in a state beaty pageant) was fuckin hotter than any woman any of you dumbasses on this site (RD excluded of course) ever got the time of day from. See? Now you got me so pissed off I ended a sentence with a preposition. I hate when I do that.

15. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239991 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Obama-Biden, Laden

Fairly clever play on words, why are you getting all hot about it, Matt7895? And how exactly does that evidence racism? In my experience, credibility/intelligence is inversely proportional to the ease with which one lobs the "racist" charge. Racist. One of the most over-used and misused words.

Zoomlines: All other areas of science are resolved by real scientists and then brought into the classroom. Not the other way round.

That's a really good point. Like if there existed a legitimate "controversy" regarding the origins of human life, that top scientists were devoting their lives to researching, yeah maybe some schoolchildren could, you know, provide us with new insights. The whole clamor to "teach the controversy" is bullshit anyway. It's such a tiring and frustrating euphemism for "teach religion." How about "Mention the Controversy." I wouldn't have a problem with that. Science class: On one side you have mountains and mountains of evidence proving evolution and supporting its steering through natural selection, such as…..But then there are people who still believe instead that goddidit. Ok? Alright, back to science.

16. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239976 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Actually, Shuggy, "were" is correct, as Molly was using a present unreal conditional sentence. Boy, you don't hear that everyday, unlike examples of the correlation between ignorance and religious belief.

17. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215428 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 10:02 pm

utelme, maybe for some but I doubt it. 8teist had it right earlier when he said most criminals simply think they will get away with it. That is why I think the death penalty doesn't deter. Unless I see a bunch of executions first hand to prove me wrong, I would imagine they're just as scared to be put to death as the rest of us would be. Your story about your friends describes plenty of people in the general population. Were your friends murderers? In fact, I might argue that even if some are scared, it's because they've had enough of prison life, and signing off seems like a better deal anyway.

18. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215422 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Damnit, second again. Do we have to wait until wednesday for PZ to "desecrate" the cracker before there's a decent thread goin on here?

19. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215418 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Told you. Let the obfuscation begin.

20. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215417 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm

CD: Also, can anyone think of any nation in recorded history that has held the overwhelming military advantage that the U.S. currently holds over the rest of the world, that didn't just take what they wanted through conquest?

Neatly done. But I get the feeling there'll be some dissent on that point.

21. The brain in love

Comment #215412 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 8:37 pm

MG: that's like the 5th time you've referred to yourself in recent posts as "white trash." So you don't have to hammer the point home by telling us your brother and sister had kids.

Joking, btw.

22. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215348 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 5:05 pm

MG: I take your point. I think it fairly irrelevant whether you call a warranted prison sentence "protection of society" or I call it "protection of society And punishment." It doesn't really matter. And of course one can, as many have done, make a coherent argument against capital punishment. It's a shame that the threat of it apparently does not deter people from murder in the US, but what the hell are you gonna do? Considering the prison system the way it is, I doubt how much rehabilitation (or attempt at it) goes on. My two cents: Legalizing pot and regulating its production and sale would not only decrease the prison population immensely, but also would increase gov't revenues, although what are the chances it would ever be used for a serious attempt to rehabilitate violent criminals? Or is it even possible, regardless of how much money you throw at it.

23. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215231 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Sciros: Sorry to flummox you with my lengthy sentences, but I just love long sentences,come to think of it, especially in the criminal law context! The point I was trying to make is that it frustrates me when I hear people say: "I don't believe in the death penalty because revenge is wrong!" When I point out to them that any punishment inflicted upon a convicted person is, in effect, society's exacting of revenge for not abiding by its rule of law, they, like you apparently, protest. I understand if you feel uncomfortable with the whole concept, but that does not change the factual circumstances, and so I will end my (apparently feeble) attempt to illustrate the difference.

24. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215203 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Sciros, thanks for attempting to elucidate, however, as my equating of the terms was always, as my posts indicate, within the context of the criminal law, the irony of your contribution is, as Hitchens would say, at your own expense.

25. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215171 by Broshiesq on July 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Christopher Davis: "Revenge," which is what people call it, is exactly the same thing as "retributuion" or "punishment,"---Broshiesq

Sorry. Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Revenge and punishment are not the same.

Revenge is an action that is very personal. It is administered by the victim (or someone very close to the victim).

Punishment, on the other hand, is supposed to be administered by an objective entity...and it is supposed to fit the crime. Vengeance is rarely proportional.

Also, "retribution" and "restitution" are not synonyms.

I really hoped I wouldn't have to do resort to this, but: revenge: vt. 1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult). (Webster's II) So yes, they really are the same, especially in the context of the criminal law. "Revenge" is what the government doles out to the convicted defendant, upon sentencing. You are muddled by thinking about the movie definition of the word.
I never said retribution and restitution were synonyms. I said within the context of the criminal law, revenge, retribution, and punishment all describe the same thing. By the way: retribution: n. 1. Something given or demanded in repayment, esp. punishment. I gave the example in a case where the person was convicted of vandalizing: Punishment = restitution (to the victim) plus retribution (through either $ or jail (to society)). Do the math.

26. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214796 by Broshiesq on July 20, 2008 at 10:48 pm

CD: "Revenge," which is what people call it, is exactly the same thing as "retributuion" or "punishment," which has always been the cornerstone of criminal law, yes public policy. If someone vandalizes, he will pay restitution to the victims but he will a also more than likely be fined, that is he will pay to the state, retribution, he will be punished. The death penalty and a "fine" imposed by the court are in the same category of "punishments," it's just that one is a rather petty punishment compared with the ultimate. So say you don't favor the death penalty (if you don't) but it's strange to hear someone say "revenge" should not be the basis for policy.

27. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214783 by Broshiesq on July 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm

8teist: But,yes get your point.I don`t believe there is a deterrent ,people commit crime because they think they are going to get away with it.

That is the perfect, simple way to explain it. Really, have you ever heard of a murderer saying, "yeah I knew I would get caught soon as I killed the dude!?" Hilarious.

28. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214779 by Broshiesq on July 20, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Yes, revenge is a legitimate purpose for capital punishment. It's called retribution, and along with protecting the public, deterrence, and rehabilitation(!), it's been a legitimate purpose of the criminal law for ever. The great thing about arguing capital punishment with atheists is, at least I know I won't hear the anti's say that it's wrong because every human life is SACRED! So I got that going for me.

29. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214775 by Broshiesq on July 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Gosh, if that's the way you feel, kraut, then don't blame us (US) for the "misdeed" of capital punishment, we got all our criminal law from the English, oh about 950 years ago. Blame them.

TWP: I thinks it's insane, all the people in prison for drug crimes in this country. There was this guy in CA who got 10 yrs fed for growing medicinal marijuana, they let him out after 2, but after the supreme court upheld the fed law prohibiting it, they sent him back. Unbelievable, the drug laws here.

30. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214751 by Broshiesq on July 20, 2008 at 9:30 pm

In 2002 Iranian judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi imposed a moratorium on stoning, but at least three people are reported to have been executed by stoning since then.

You just can't beat islamic law for consistency.

EvidenceOnly: The US should look itself in the mirror as well and abandon the death penalty and wars of aggression and torture.

Why, we already know we're the fairest of them all.

b0ltzm0n: Does "how" someone is put to death by the state determine the civility of that state? I'm on the fence, and happen to be living in the most pro-death penalty state in the USA (Texas). Someone help me off this fence please.

No. The method is irrelevant as long as it's quick. I mean the appeals process, not the putting-to-death part.

Goldy: But the actual death penalty does not appear to have the deterent effect people want - murders, as far as I know, are still committed in Texas, Iran and China.

Goldy, it would be quite silly to grant a deterrent effect of an action ONLY if that action completely eliminated the undesired behavior. I think most studies have shown that the death penalty is not a significant deterrent to murder. However, deterrence is only one of many purposes of criminal law. I don't believe that the lack of deterrent effect is a very good argument Against the death penalty. What's the point, then? Well look at what it's called: Death PENALTY; Capital PUNISHMENT. What's wrong with good ole ass-kicking punishment? If you don't play by the rules, and if the circumstances are egregious enough (aggravating), we bid you adieu.

31. The Return of Religion

Comment #213790 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Bye, all.

32. The Return of Religion

Comment #213781 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:51 pm

That was an excellent quote. By Landfill, he who replied with, Empty. It was at the very beginning at the mock news conference. Might only be on certain dvds. The movie was about half as good overall as something like Caddyshack, but damn if it doesn't have just about as many great lines.

33. The Return of Religion

Comment #213776 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Thanks for bringing me back pearl. Why did I tell that? Hmmm. Ask Frankus.

It was, appropriately, Beerfest. Highly recommended for thirsty movie fans everywhere.

34. The Return of Religion

Comment #213771 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Stelllaaaaa!

Alright my bad joke of the evening:

How does a smart guy order a beer in germany?





Ein stein

35. The Return of Religion

Comment #213763 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:31 pm

The best line:

What's your favorite beer? Empty.


Can anyone name the movie?

36. The Return of Religion

Comment #213760 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Oh, no, Stevie Ray's bro couldn't carry his guitar picks.

TWP: I think Sam Adams has a couple that are decent (and the winter ale Is good), but overall I think they're overrated.

37. The Return of Religion

Comment #213752 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Long live the King. Hilarious. Everyone where I grew up drank miller lite (beer flavored water imo) so it became sort of a dividing line like cubs v sox. I still to this day make fun of my friends who drink that piss and when they raise their eyebrows at my bud, I point to the label and say, umm it says king of beers right here, how can you argue with that?

38. The Return of Religion

Comment #213745 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Don't think I've seen anything from that brewery but I'll give it another look. And as far as domestics go, I've always been a sucker for plain old budweiser. Guess that went with being a cub fan. Oh well. I know what the other poster (Laurie?) was trying to say about Page and Angus being somewhat "confined," but there's nothing quite like a badass jam from either of those guys.

39. The Return of Religion

Comment #213739 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Pearl & Radesq, I thought patron meant tequila!

40. The Return of Religion

Comment #213733 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Waiting to go out but still here, sorta. Stevie Ray Vaughan was the best guitarist that ever lived. There, that's the music part. And after Guinness and Bass, the beers in the US for me are Rouge Dead Guy ale DogFishHead ipa and anything from Bells in Kalamazoo, MI. Takes care of the beer (as I take care of a beer).

41. The Return of Religion

Comment #213623 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm

TWP: Have you heard/seen Ugly Americans? Really good band out of Austin.

42. The Return of Religion

Comment #213618 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Bernard Baptiste: Pity he had to soil King Billy's - who is also an avowed atheist - second greatest love song by associating it absurdedly with his fairy godfather.

Is he really? I had no idea. Always enjoyed his music (52nd St. is outstanding) Total respect, now.

43. Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

Comment #213596 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm

MorituriMax: Prince should remake his song then at the meeting where they set the final guidelines for the courses, he can belt out..

"We're gonna PARTY like it's 1399!"

That's hilarious.

Ascaphus: But I just had a brainstorm! Bush has been pushing his "faith-based" initiative to have churches accept federal money for programs, and Obama is threatening to keep it up.

From what I've read, Obama has been promising to Expand them.

Mark Smith: The Bible is just a collection of words. If there is a danger in having lessons about it, then it is surely a fault of the American education system, not a fault of the proposed subject. Can't you trust American teachers to teach properly?

Ummmm, no. Are you really that naive?
At least the students wouldn't have to study for the tests, just pray for a good grade.

44. The Return of Religion

Comment #212855 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Richard Morgan:
"I dont want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are.


And to any nostalgic atheists here - God loves you just the way you are today. But His love is a transforming love.

(In my best R. Lee Ermey voice): You gotta be fuckin shittin me, Richard! Billy Joel is god?!

45. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212785 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm

hungarianelephant: I think this concept of earth-time is beyond the (current) imagination of most people.

I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest roadblocks to the faith heads' critically analyzing their beliefs (especially the ones who think humans hunted dinosaurs!) is that they have no conception of how long everything has been around. I've been recommending to anyone that will listen to watch the four-part series on The Science Channel called "Time," hosted by Michio Kaku. Good stuff.

46. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212714 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

hungarianelephant: I've also never understood the general argument that "it's the law, therefore it's good". Precedent does serve a useful purpose, as even liberals like Dworkin concede. That's probably a discussion for another day. I'm taking issue with Broshiesq's assertion that "this is the law" - even the premiss of the argument is false.

No it's not. I am familiar with the purpose of the 14th Amendment, what I'm asserting is that it's fairly obvious that any state (none that I know of) or municipality (like Chicago) that has an absolute ban on handgun possession, just like DC and its(former) law, will get sued (Chicago was sued immediately) and will LOSE. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, these laws, as they currently stand, are lame duck laws, destined for the garbage heap of bad judgment. And please quit completely distorting what I have been saying. I Never said or used the argument: What is Law = What is Good. I agree that would be an asinine contention for anyone to make. There have just been too many people on this thread talking about what laws should be enacted, as if it would have (ultimately) the desired legal effect. Not in this case. The Constitution can be amended, yes, but no one is acknowledging how extremely difficult that would be to do, compared with simply enacting new legislation. And anyone out there thinking that the second amendment might someday be repealed, you'd have better luck finding a three-legged ballerina.

47. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212553 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 10:29 am

al-rawandi: 32,439 (prior year for rough estimate's sake) suicides. You claim at most 2% are firearm related.

32,439 x .02= 648.78

So your stats leave 16,401 firearm suicides unaccounted for.

No. I'm not wrong. Read my post again, carefully. Attempts v. success. There were 816,000 suicide ATTEMPTS in 2005.

al-rawandi: The right to bear arms must be regulated (I am sure you don't agree that we should have ICBM's and Apache helicopters), so we must agree that weapons should be regulated, it is simply a question of how much.

Well, of course. No doubt. There exist reasonable restrictions on Every right we have, that's really not news. The thing I can't stand is when people don't acknowledge the state of affairs as it presently exists in the US. Only two states prohibit carrying concealed, and the Court has just said it is a constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home, and have it Unlocked, ready for Immediate personal defense. Say you disagree with this, if you like. Just acknowledge that this is the law.

48. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212282 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 1:07 am

al-rawandi: As I said for the suicides before, this is the best case against gun ownership.

Dude. That's really, really weak. You are obviously Not a supporter of the Second Amendment.

decius: Broshieq,

I often disagree with al-rawandi, as in this issue, but he can bury you under geological layers of scholarship and rationality.
Your emotional outbursts are pathetic, really.

I rather doubt that save for sheer pomposity, al-rawandi could bury me under anything remotely resembling sophisticated argument, as far as this thread goes, anyway. For all you people talking suicide, firearm suicides comprise 52% of the total in the US (2005). People often use this statistic erroneously in claiming that guns are the most common method of choice. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Guns account for only 1 to 2 percent of all suicide attempts. The reason they make up 52% of suicides is because when someone chooses to shoot himself (yeah, it's a male thing - females make up 75% of attempts, but only 20% of success stories) he gets the job done 85% - 92% of the time. Now try to follow: If you are So concerned with suicide, should it not follow that you are actually concerned with addressing the causes of a person's attempting it, instead of trying to eliminate the method that proves the most lethal yet the least used??? Or is it something the anti-gun crowd would foist upon me in an (attempt to) appeal to my emotions? Nice try, I guess I have my scholarship and rationality to thank for the ability to dismiss such a non-sequitur of an anti-gun argument.
Oh, and by the way, I hope al-rawandi is as embarrassed as you should be. As if with all the pandering to his supposed intellectual heroics I saw on this thread before he joined in, he should long for decius to come to his aid. Dipshit. Oh, pardon me, was that an emotional outburst?
And let me point something out to all who talk about what kinds of new "laws" and/or "restrictions" they would like or think might work regarding handguns in the US. The trend has been a steady Increase in the number of states that allow the concealed carry of firearms. Only Two states completely prohibit this. The people in this country have spoken and this is what WE want. And I know there are stories all the time about how a decision by the Supreme Court has upset many people and legislators to the point where the cry is to Change the Law. That's perfectly fine when the Supremes were interpreting a Statute as the basis for their holding, but Not when they are interpreting the Constitution, which is what they did. The legislature cannot pass a law to overrule this.

49. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212256 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm

al-rawandi: I AGREE. I am willing to ban concealed weapons, in fact I am willing to have much stricter regulations on hand guns altogether. That doesn't bother me so much, because hand guns are designed for use against people, for the most part.

I am really throwing my hands up now. You are dangerously misguided, as well as narrow minded, and selfish. But don't take my word for it, ask around. Misguided: 40 states think you're Wrong. Wow, you want to Ban concealed weapons AND have stricter regulations, really? Both? Together? At the same time? And carrying a concealed weapon makes a woman over 5x less likely to be a violent crime victim. So much for your being a feminist. Narrow Minded: How can you not see that it would never stop there? Selfish: Are you so fascinated with the right to own a rifle, apparently, that you would seemingly gladly give up the right to possess what the Constitution now protects? And how could you ever imply that hunting is more worthy of legal protection than personal defense? Jesus, you're strange. The best part, of course, is how everyone's post yesterday was like: oooh, al's gonna be here to teach everyone about guns. Watch out gun haters, better get outta here before al logs on and kicks your ass. I was really anticipating your comments. And then you just shit on the track. Pity.

50. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212252 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Gregg Townsend: No. Yet, you might be surprised if you included drug users in treatment planning. If drugs were legal and controlled and abusers were consulted on how best to get them off the drugs Americans may be able to cancel the war on drugs.

Amen, but as long as religion's still around, it'll never happen.