bullets13

The last two mass shootings were perpetrated by people with known radical leanings, and both could've been stopped. I'd much rather the government take action against people with radical ties than continue to allow them act on their beliefs. The key is that the legislation needs specifically worded parameters to prevent it from being abused.

I'd be more than fine with this. The possible danger would be the government using the list to blacklist people who are merely vocal against them, but in today's age of social media I don't believe that this would be possible without scrutiny that they do not want.

From the article: Zeid deplored what he called the ease with which individuals can buy firearms in America – “in spite of prior criminal backgrounds, drug use, histories of domestic violence and mental illness, or direct contact with extremists – both domestic and foreign.” i don't have a problem keeping these people from buying guns. The problem is that there is more of a concern for their rights than those of the law-abiding gun owner, making it difficult to track these people, or publicly obtain information on their activities. On top of that, due to previous efforts of the left to attach sweeping gun legislation to bills that might prevent these people from accessing guns, the right has shown (understandably) little or no inclination to give a little on certain issues, based on the very real fear that if they give a little the left will try and take a lot.

Punishing the entire religion of Islam for some of its members using it as an excuse for killing is no better than punishing all gun owners because some use them as a tool for killing. The attitude that some of you take towards the entire religion mirrors the attitude that the far left takes towards all gun owners. That being said, our country and government MUST take action when they have reason to believe that any person, Muslim or not, has radical leanings that could potentially lead to terrorism. This shooting, as well as the recent shooting in California, were both perpetrated by terrorists already known to be radical. Bigotry is one thing, but ignoring clear warning signs for the purpose of being politically correct is another thing entirely.

You're so eaten up with this crap that you've lost the ability to comprehend what you read. I said it was a common practice 70 years ago, I did not say that it has not occurred since. You've named one occurrence (16 years ago). People hang themselves every day. So again, as I was saying, it's 99.9% he hung himself. Your mindset of white fault for everything is robbing you of your common sense.

Mike Brown absolutely deserved what he got, and he wasn't shot for walking down the street. That was as righteous a shoot as you'll see, and his DNA in the car and the trajectory of the wound channels completely verified the officer's story. There a handful of unlawful cop killings a year (like 4 or 5, maybe) but the fact that a felon fresh off of a strong armed robbery, who attacked a cop and was then shot, is a hero to some is a real shame.

The probability that a man hung himself, which happens every day in this country, versus his being lynched, which was a common practice 70 years ago? I'd say it's about 99.9% that he hung himself, and that's WITHOUT the interview with his wife

And that's why those problems are repeated. For SOME, it is easier to blame others than to take actions to fix the problem.

so a quote from his wife is unbelievable, but unnamed people who know nothing of the situation attributing it to a lynching are absolutely believable.

[Hidden Content] "Lennin Johan Torres-Sepulveda, 38, of Atlanta took a picture of himself with a noose around his neck and sent it to his wife right before he hanged himself, the widow Patricia Lane said in an interview with cleveland.com." the only distraction here is your trying to turn a completely unrelated topic into yet another racial debate.

Is it your belief that every owner in town who flew an American flag did?

Loving this ranger domination!

I have no doubt. But I imagine it has to do with his junky house, and nothing to do with the flag. In fact, the only thing a flag has to do with the article is that it's how he painted his house.

Probably not as many as haven't been cited for flying American flags.

Like I said, with sports, I'm not really a fan of transgenders competing as the gender they identify as because in some scenarios they'd gain an unfair advantage over their opponents. But if this is the direction we're going to go in these situations, perhaps estrogen treatment is the answer to even the playing field back out.

Looks like he got cited for many things, but not the flag. I still think it's funny

I could care less. My sister and two of my four first cousins are married to people of other races. All of their spouses treat them well and provide for them, and all are accepted as part of the family.

That's a tough one. She's taking estrogen treatments, which negate much of the muscular advantages that testosterone provide, and didn't exactly dominate a weak field, but I'm not a big fan of this out of possible unfairness to other athletes. I know there has been some issues in major female track and field competitions with women from certain areas of Africa where hermaphroditism is prevalent, and babies are assigned female gender at birth, but show elevated testosterone levels as adults. They're then dominating women's track at the international level. They instituted testosterone limit requirements and those same athletes dropped off tremendously with estrogen treatment. So maybe that is the answer for HS sports as well? I'm not really sure. As an aside, I read in some other articles about this athlete that she uses a single person bathroom at school and showers alone, which I think is a very practical approach to THAT issue.

Lalas is a fool, but Klinsmann has been pretty shaky in charge, although I do believe his work with the youth system is going to pay off in a big way.

Morality is a funny thing, and each generation has an idea of what is moral and what is immoral, and each generation thinks their generation is better than the ones that come afterwards. There's a lot of stuff that is commonplace in society today (such as homosexuality and abortion) that Christians look at as societal decline. But if i look back at the gang wars of the 80s and 90s, the rampant sexuality and drug use of the 60s and 70s, and the discrimination, segregation and racism during and before the time periods mentioned, and all the way back to slavery and the slaughtering of native americans, it's hard for me to look back and find a time where morality was ever really all that strong of a suit for our country. To address your point, though, when it comes to anything goes, liberals as a general rule (there are nutters on both sides of the aisle) will adhere to "anything goes if it's not hurting someone else." the thought that any rational human being (even liberals) is going to put the rights of a pedophile before the rights of a child is ridiculous to me, as is SOME (not you) conservatives' efforts to pretend that letting two consenting adults get married is akin to a man (or woman) raping a child, and the assertion that if you support one you somehow support the other is ridiculous as well.

I did answer a simple question. the answer to your simple question was "as the laws will not change for pedophilia, that will not be an issue i have to deal with". That being said, your question was if the law changed on pedophilia, would i still enforce the law. I'm not sure what law i would enforce if the rules changed making it legal. I could not arrest a pedophile, and if i did, not only would I myself be breaking the law, but no jail would accept them for breaking a law that no longer exists. But no worries, because like i said in my original point, the laws are not going to change on pedophilia, so i don't have to worry about that.

I'm still in the process of trying to get in law enforcement, but seeing as the laws will not change for pedophilia, that will not be an issue I have to deal with.

Believe it or not, one does not have to be a Christian OR a conservative to have a problem with adults raping children.

The first and only statement in the article that I tried to verify proved misleading and false in both what actually happened and when it happened. Forgive me for stopping there. As for the movement to legalize pedophilia, I have no doubt that pedophiles would love to have it legalized, but there will never be any traction. I'm sure there are a handful of ultra liberals nutsos who would argue for its legality, but there's a handful of conservative nutsos with equally offensive views on other issues

Since the propaganda piece you posted provided many quote attributions with no links, I googled the one that I figured would be easiest to prove/disprove, which was that a democratic Florida representative named Alcee Hastings stated that pedophilia should be protected under law as a sexual orientation. This in fact has been circulated by several fake news sites (such as allenbwest.com), but I could find no links from legitimate news sources confirming it. I also found several sites stating that this claim by these right wing sites was false, but they're the kind of sites you guys only believe when they say what you want to hear (such as allenbwest.com). That being said, the incident in question occurred in 2009, not days after gay marriage was legalized as this "article" would have you believe. So to recap, you have a propoganda piece full of "research" with no links to any of that research, but the "news piece" wants to link legalized gay marriage to legalized pedophilia through said "research". The one unattributed "fact" that I checked was dubious at best, and even if it wasn't an obvious misrepresentation by the right (which of course it is), it occurred 6 years before this article insinuates that it occurred, rendering the connection the piece is trying to make with it utterly false.