diverborg

I think you got something here. I'd run with it. Find a friend that knows how to make webpages. I'm not sure what kind of technology this site uses so the hunter actually moves the gun, but it's worth researching.

Well, I hope you're right. Anyway, back to the internet hunting thingee.

Oh boy, God help us. I hope GWB will make we'll make a well thought out decision on this. I'm not an expert on foreign policy, so I don't know what the best decision would be.

I haven't read the rest of the posts so maybe this was stated already, but the reason the government has any interest in marriage is because of the possibility of children. Their concern is for children, and since gay couples cannot "normally" reproduce, I'm not sure what the big push is for. I've had a good friend of mine who I've been roommates with for 3 years. Whose to say the government shouldn't get involved in this and give us certain tax breaks and other benefits. How is this different than two guy friends that are in love with each other. We'll never get recognition(nor do we want it), so why should a gay couple who can't have children be given these considerations. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from going to a church that approves and taking vows. This should be enough. I think state recognized gay marriages are nothing more than a push for the gay agenda and will create possibilities of discrimination suits against churches that will not marry gay couples. Sounds crazy maybe, but Canada can already prosecute anyone that speaks negatively in public about homosexuality. Anyway the point was that, states are interested in marriage because of children.

I know North Korea has been a problem, but I haven't watched the news lately. Are there new conflicts arising just recently causing concern?

I don't see what the problem is, as long as the state the animal is killed in is ok with it and the cyber-hunter has the proper permit and all regulations are followed. This doesn't surprise me, but why the hell does California give a shit about animals hunted from Texas. Just another animal rights movement. Yeah it's pretty cheap and unsportsmanlike, but so is buying steak from a grocery store.

DAMMITT, I just spent an hour reading this entire post, hoping to give my 2 cents at the end, and now everybody is getting along for the most part, and the major debate is over. This sucks I'm going to the bonfire.

Guys I think we need to band together and finally take control of ourselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but if we all hold out long enough we can reverse this power trip. I'm positive women must have some amount of time that they can only go without a penis, although I'm not sure if it would be in my lifetime, but it there must some sort of time frame. We need to band together and take control. Nevermind, I forgot it's already Wednesday and I haven't gotten laid this week.

This argument could go on forever with more time that I would ever have, but I'm not sure why you feel the bible encourages any of these terrible things you've described. I guess you make it into what you want it to be, same with your opinion on Jesus, even though there are many more writings than just the bible that speak of His life. I do apologize for accusing you of your hate towards Christians. It was the impression I received from your first post. I will probably never understand why anybody thinks Christianity is so dangerous.

I will not disagree with this one bit, but can we realistically and financially meet these kind of expectations to have a cop being able to patrol every neighborhood all the time. Yeah, in a perfect scenario, nothing would go unguarded, but this is far from reality anywhere, otherwise I think more cities would surely pick this option if this were the answer. I'm sure the same could be said for my argument, but I think it's the liberal idea of more rights for criminals and continually giving "second" chances that is preventing this, not cost.

No way, I did it once already. It wasn't worth it.

How often do people really get the maximum penalty. I've met people that have had 3 DUI's. So what they lost their license and have six months probation. These are pretty minor consequenses considering they are taking other people's lives at risk. Plus, they still drive even if their license has been suspended.

It's all speculation, but my theory would be that the offenders would drastically decrease with extremely stiff penalties, hopefully leading to less people in jail in the long run. I'm not sure how we would ever find this out though. How much more education can you really put on drunk driving and actually expect it change anything. If drunk driving was treated as attempted murder do you think less people would drive drunk. I think so. I'm not necessarily against having more police officers, but to change anything we would have to be considering a significantly higher amount of police officers. To be honest, I'm not sure on what the cost/effectiveness of this would be. The standards I live by are "a broken rule, a consequence."

I think it is also a little difficult to compare speeding(whereas you can educate people on potential dangers) to more serious crimes such as killing a guy where they already know the consequences if they do it. Also, do we really want a cop on every street corner watching our every move. No, we enjoy certain freedoms that we hope certain offenders don't ruin.

QuoteSpeeding can be reduced by more cops and more education regarding how vehicles handle at high speeds and increased breaking distance, etc... I know if I got a year in jail for speeding there would be no way in hell I would ever speed. I would like to think the same for others. By the way I do speed regularly. Cities can only afford a certain amount of police officers, and I believe there are already plenty of educational/afterschool programs already and that doesn't change anything. The criminals can easily choose not to listen or participate in those activities, but they have no choice about the consequences of breaking a law. .

I agree, I see no other way of preventing it other than stiffer penalties.

I like watermelon.

Yeah, I actually did a study on Switzerland, and how they actually have shooting exercises in school for P.E., but yet have never had a school shooting. Pretty cool. Switzerland's mentality is a little different from the rest of Europe though.

I'm sorry I misjudged you first of all. As far as the average joe carrying guns, there are strict background checks that go into receiving concealed weapons permits. Also, the guns are here whether or not there are laws against them, so why not allow law abiding citizens to carry them if criminals will have them anyway.

I think this philosophy gets carried away and starts to infringe on the freedoms of law abiding citizens (ie gun control). Why punish everyone for a few people's actions. If you're going to be stupid, the consequences should be extremely harsh, and this should be the deterant that prevents the crime from being repeated by others.

I've never quite understood it, but every person I've ever talked to from Europe is very anti-guns

That's pretty interesting, because in my state I've been in some very secluded towns far from any big citys, and that was normal to see the farmers in the bar with their shotguns sitting next to them. I do know in the same state you couldn't do that in the metro. Never was a problem though. Where the problem starts is when you're in the city then you'll have the thugs carrying the guns and probably not any harmless farmers.

I passed out on new years when I cut my finger on a broken beer bottle. Probably shouldn't look.

sorry the format of the previous post is messy. this is the first time I've ever posted. This was suppose to be a reply to Tink1717 in regards to his comments on Christiantiy being as fu**ed up as Islam.

I think you may be a little uneducated on the differences. I have read much of the Koran out of curiousity, and almost all of the bible. The Koran is full of hate towards Christians and Jews. This is one of the major focuses of it's teachings. It also appears the Koran was written by lawyers, because many of the rules in it are vague, and always finish with the quote "except with just cause." What is "just cause?" This leaves a very open and dangerous interpretation. The bible on the other hand is very specific and if you actually read it you find that it's flawless in its consistency. QuoteYou may actually enjoy reading the Koran because you seem to hate Christians so much. I'm not sure what is so harmful about Christianity. Jesus the centerpiece of Chrisianity did nothing but love everybody. Sinners are the ones who loved Jesus the most because he loved them back, and spent almost all of his time with them. This is what Christianity is all about. You are just as big of a zealot trying to "evangelize" people towards agnosticism. Everybody believes something, and when you feel strongly about it you tell others. That is fundamental Christianity. What is so dangerous about that!!