Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

'One of my favorite lyrics by U2 says: "Choose your enemies carefully, 'cause they will define you." The NRA, like too much of the conservative movement, has chosen its enemies indiscriminately and seems defined in opposition to most of modern America.' haha yep

i think it wont make a difference if america band guns or not, people will always find a way and when you take the guns away you'll be left vulnerable to robberies.

i feel that the death penalty should stay around as a form of punishment, but only for the most heinous of crimes. As for how we obtained this lethal drug, it is ours legally and can not be taken back. However america should start making our own lethal drugs if we want to take part in executions.

I think that they're doing an amazing job at peacefully trying to get justice for George Floyd, they mentioned a group called Mother's Love who were standing outside of the trial I think and were handing out flyers and offering emotional support.

I'm glad that the trial is finally underway. I just wonder how they found unbiased members to make up a jury? You'd have to be living under a rock to have not heard about this case and formed some kind of opinion. While I do believe the officer is in the wrong, he still deserves the right to a fair trial, and I'm wondering how fair this trial will be since it's such a public matter and so personal to so many.

I'm glad the trial is finally happening, I wonder if the person who shot George Floyd will be guilty

I believe that George Floyd had an extremely unreasonable death and he didn't get his deserved rights. I also believe that a remembrance should be in order to remind us that we have protection against things like this.

The continuous protest throughout the trial is something that is going to keep the light on this important issue. The trial is going to stay focused on and true justice will be served for George Floyd.

I'm glad that they found the person that killed George Floyd guilty.

I'm glad that they found the person that killed George Floyd and found guilty.

It is good that he was convicted of all the crimes charged against him. I couldn't imagine the outcome being different.

I'm glad that justice was served and that Derek Chauvin was convicted of all the crimes against him. Let's just hope that other people like George Floyd will get their justice too.

I'm glad he was actually found guilty since there have been many times before where justice hasn't been served and they go free but this is good progress.

It's good that he was found guilty, he 100% was guilty. George Floyd didn't have the greatest past but that was no reason enough for him to be murdered.

People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters

This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.

No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.

This should not be allowed

I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site

This should not be able to allowed

I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.

This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.

People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.

This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.

i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos

Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa

No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.

I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.

I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.

i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place

why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm

I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.

I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.

I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.

If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.

i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote

I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.

I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.

I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.

I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

Don't worry... I still have cookies for you!

Wow that's crazy!

The perfect crime....

why would anyone do that seriously what is wrong with people are you that low that you would even steal especially from little kids.

They are going to be rich!

Look at all the cookies I have, I will never go hungry!!!

I thought that was too extreme. I don't see how he caused a breech of test security.

I believe that his punishment fits what he did.

His punishment was too extreme. I understand he probably shouldn't have put it on twitter, but still, getting suspended for 4 days was a little much.

He didn't do anything really wrong. Maybe he shouldn't have put it on Twitter, but still, it wasn't that big of a deal.

ya its nice that she has taken such a tragic event and used it to try and prevent more shootings in the future

Should we focus on gun control or preventing violence in general? This is a pretty interesting follow up: "US suffers far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation, says a new study" http://news.msn.com/us/more-violent-deaths-in-us-than-other-wealthy-nations-report-shows

i am all for freedom but when it comes to gun control people in general should know that if their children or themselves know they have a mental health disorder that they shouldn't have guns in their house or in cases they have children with mental disorders keep them in a gun cabinet and hold on to the key

Gun cabinets are just as easy for kids to break into even if the kids do not have the key. I don't think you should not include people with disabilities from being able to have firearms in their homes, it may not be the safest thing but it is still a right that they have. Most people who have firearms in their homes have them to protect themselves and their families, not to harm other people. I think we need stricter gun laws for everyone, not just certain people.

I think that the government should force people to own a gun safe big enough for all of the guns they own. We can't just take away guns! One way or another people are going to go out of their way to kill people.