@VoodooV
years ago police and sherrifs were part of the community.they lived next door.they went to church and participated in local social events.
so incidents like this were a rarity.

and cops were held accountable by the community.
i remember as a teen playing basketball at a friends house and watching a group of men walking with purpose to a cops house who lived right down the road.

being teens and super curious we followed the men.
now for quite some time it had been known that this officer was fond of stopping young women and frisking them for no apparent reason other than to grope them.since there was no actual evidence nothing was ever done about it concerning discipline towards this officer.

so these fathers decided to do something about it.

they were calm.
they were collected.
and they told the cop to get out of their neighborhood.
leave.
and that if the cop ever touched another young girl they would pull him out by his feet and humiliate him in front of his family.(which was awesome)

the cop laughed it off with false bravado and refused to leave.

here is where it got interesting.
people started to shun this cop and his family.
nobody would do business with him.not locally at least.
they wouldnt sit near him at church.
his kids didnt get invited to parties or any social events.

and within a month he moved his family to conneticut.
no violence.
no harsh words.
the neighborhood just shut his family out.

but those days of cops being part of the community are gone.cops have become revenue officers who represent the power of the state.the cops of old who joined the force out of duty has been replaced with egomaniacs and violence addicts.(not all mind you).

so we get incidents like we see here in this video.
shame really.

whats even MORE shameful is to read the muppets who blame the victim for violence.
"if she had just complied"
"if she hadnt worn that skirt"
"if they had just remained silent and not spoken up"

then what?
slink away in shame and silence?
THATS your answer?

a police officer should always be held to a higher degree of integrity.
of professionalism.according to you muppets its the other way around and it is WE,the citizen,who must anticipate the inherent violence and submit with a timid whimper.

do what your told.
sit down.
shut up.
obey.
muppets.
the lot of ya.

Some aliens are truly TERRIBLE at appealing to real human beings in a commercial fashion. It's like THEY LIVE 88' but you don't even need the glasses to see the nonsense they're trying to shovel.

Take Valve on the other hand, now there's a sweet, sweet Combine I can be unknowingly be enslaved by...

If his rights were being violated, why didn't he pull out his gun and defend them AS IT IS WRITTEN? That's where the 2nd amendment fails IMO...or at the very least, that's where people fail. We hear the hard liners whining non-stop that they think they live in a tyrannical gov't (despite being elected by the people) Where are the revolts then? Where are the 2nd Amendment remedies? In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Where is that willingness to kill and to die in order to preserve liberty? Or are you just talking the talk but when push comes to shove, even the hardliners accept that they don't know what actual tyranny is.

In all honesty though, the audio was so shitty I didn't hear the specific exchange that got the official so pissed off. It seemed like he was being kicked out simply because he was getting too loud or he mouthed back to the official. So yeah, I can agree that he probably didn't deserve to be kicked out. Was it an offense? yep. But it was a trivial offense and BOTH sides should have handled it better. It seemed awful petty of the official for that one thing to set him off. But hey, the activist should have been on his best behavior too. You're representing other people, so represent them well. You don't have to like the person in office, but respect the office nonetheless.

Just seemed like both sides were being childish. Yay two party system!

howtofearfirebugsdeath...what a concept

Brown recluse tips:
Don't live where she wants to be or in doing so provide the conditions for her to flourish
or/and
Don't crawl around where they live in Speedo

Your chance of being stricken is less than losing chin-blood in a fender-bender.
The least-scary spiders are the ones there are so very few of.

What you don't want is to wake up to a tarantula infestation in the bungalow you just rented on your honeymoon in Guatemala....That shit can ruin a marriage!

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

On that show, they regularly cover the difference between agnosticism and atheism, as callers often bring up the subject.

The hosts are agnostic atheists. Meaning that they are aware that they do not have absolutely conclusive evidence of a god's absence, but they live their lives assuming there is no god. This is the exact same position that everyone (I HOPE!) reading this post has adopted with regards to unicorns and leprechauns.

A gnostic atheist would be an atheist that is certain this is no god. There are similarly gnostic and agnostic theists. The word agnostic, despite very specific roots, has become commonly misused, to the point where most dictionaries now contain two contradictory definitions for it.

@shinyblurry Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions.

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Suppose you didnt know anything about humans, and you wanted to know how long they lived in earth years. Now suppose you had a sample of 3:

Person 1: 3 years old
Person 2: 43 years old
Person 3: 81 years old.

Now, from this very limited dataset, Your conclusions about the human race would almost certainly be wrong. From the mean of 42,3 there is a standard deviation of 39, which means that you'd assume that only 68% would be less than 80 years old. You'd reckon that 95% would be less than 140 years old etc.
In other words: Pretty useless.

But if you had the age of, say, 10000 random people, things would start to look very different. From such a dataset, you could see that there would be a very steep drop-off rate above 80, with noone above 110 or so, and so you could start making qualified guesses, in fact, they would no longer be guesses, but conclusions based on data.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Outrospection (empathy) is nothing without introspection first.

One will have no perspective to offer others is they do not fully understand how they think or feel themselves about the life they live.

I understand the need to be increasingly empathetic. In fact, I applaud it. However, one must not swing the pendulum so far the other way as to lose sight of one's self.

The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?

Hey Shinyblurry,

This is exactly why you should come over to my house and try some DMT. You said anyone who does it is under control of demons. How would you know if you havent tried? Are you saying that you do not really know anything at all?

The door is open.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Do shadows on the wall WHAT me? =oO

Ahem, how can they live happily ever after iffen they're DEAD? =o/

You have to think, if they dont value our freedoms and customs - why do they live here?

I love the caliber of questioning these teens are asking. It shows the level of sophistication that today's teens have. I don't think students today are given the credit they deserve when it comes to individual thought and commitment to understanding society as they live and change within it.