Comments on: A challenge for our times: getting bullets vs. birth control

By: Judith

Judith — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:46 +0000

This is lopsided for so many reasons, first of all abstinence is free–F-R-E-E! Secondly, condoms are not that expense and although they are not idiot proof, offer a lot of protect for those willing and able to use them correctly. Secondly, the rhythm method, for which the PILL was designed to supplement (as a way to encourage REGULAR menses), offers a lot of protection, once again, to those willing and able to use this method correctly, also–F-R-E-E! The problem is as with all medications, people want a quick fix that will end up doing more damage that the symptom. Cancer, blood clots, etc…I say let them have their over counter meds with no doctor supervision, great way to cull the already half dead population!

By: John Wilburn

John Wilburn — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:26:04 +0000

Phil Chitwood:

“How about a meaningful debate: Glocks vs 1911s”

I don’t know how Dan could have missed such an obvious thread topic. But, unlike liberty vs. gun control, BOTH the Glock and 1911 are good things.
.

By: Phil Chitwood

Phil Chitwood — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:22:05 +0000

How about a meaningful debate: Glocks vs 1911s

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:43:04 +0000

LOL

Looks as if I left a not out of, “… I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have you voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.”

OTHO, looks as if Sandi got it. Good for you, Sandi.

For those who like to pick on my poor typing / getting ahead of my thoughts / proofos / etc, FWIIW, I intended, “I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have [not] voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.”

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:36:50 +0000

Re: Jack @ 11:33 pm

Who insists that the “armed” folk in the schools had to be paid or mandated?

That slips in when the authoritarian we-are-in-control folk step in to insure they remain in control.
.

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:31:07 +0000

Not too bad for CNN, given they (CNN and most colleges) would not yet approve of student with guns, IMHO.

http://tinyurl.com/ak2hpho

**
Schools teach how to act during shooting
The Situation Room

Added on January 9, 2013

Miguel Marquez finds that universities and colleges are using shooter
training to prepare for armed intruders on campus

[video]
**

Maybe, in time the idea that professors armed with guns might be better than
being armed with books to throw will dawn on the professors, in the future. Then, maybe….

Well one can hope.
.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:11:43 +0000

@ Jack January 12, 2013 @ 7:40 pm #33, hilarious and sadly probably right along the lines of what we will indeed get.

I see the confusion Dave Hicks, I use “we” to mean those of us who believe there is a role for meaningful gun control in stopping so much carnage. I suppose I get carried away in thinking others agree with me.

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 04:43:41 +0000

Re: Sandi Saunders @ 5:14 pm

I hear you and I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have you voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.

FWIIW, I try hard to come across as not speak for anyone but me. Yet, many of the pro-more-restriction / prohibition still appear to assume that I do.

As to taking the guns out of the hands of those who will commit violent crimes, maybe the answer lies in reducing the number of those who will commit violent crimes — the press and game industry reducing the celebration of violence, providing healthcare and the provision of better public health facilities for mental health, more jobs for our young might be a great start. However, many Americans are not “all ears” save for firearm prohibition.

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 04:33:38 +0000

@Dave Hicks @ 11:30pm

I just don’t see the point in spending a lot of taxpayer money on a problem that can be just as easily resolved with no cost to the taxpayers.

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 04:30:03 +0000

Re: Jack @ 5:15 pm

Well that disproves Dan’s claim about all the pro-freedom folk being in lock-step.