That was the oddly balanced position on the matter that "Bowling for Columbine" seemed to take (oddly because hey, it's Michael Moore). The film pointed to similar rates of firearm ownership in Canada, yet a lower murder rate, and the simple fact that Canadians don't have viciously active organizations for the promotion of firearm ownership.

My view of gun control is fairly simple: we argue that we need them for self-defense and that under gun control, the criminals will still have guns. This is true in that  you really can't stop those who are truly determined (and have the money) from getting guns, but how many deaths could we prevent from families not having a handgun handy when Mr. Smith comes home drunk and is kinda pissed off at his wife?

I have certain qualms with a stronger police state, like the one here in Japan, for instance (that has scary amounts of ability to peek into people's private lives), but you can't argue with the results

That's just it...it doesn't matter how you look at it, it's a double edged sword which is where the pro-gun lobbyists (and anti-gun lobbyists) fall short.  basically, by endorsing gun use and freedom, that makes it easier for everyone to get guns.  Criminals or thugs (or whoever is the problem) is gonna get guns either way, yes, but this doesn't make it just magically only help the just and fearful masses, it helps the criminals too. 

Taking guns away means good people go without and criminals still find their way to guns, but it's harder. 

The problem here is that people who WANT guns are going to get them no matter what, whether you permit or restrict only alters the degree on both sides.  The fact of the matter is that there's nothing you can do to magically make the law-abiding citizens safe from gun crime.  Bad people are going to do bad things regardless.  

viscious cycle, endless loop, chicken-egg, double-edged sword, see it as you will.  Logic fails on either side becuase there is no solution, only propoganda. 

And it is like that because the industry is out in the open and legal!

just imagine it became banned and illegal, they would have to move underground, that is where the problems would begin.

http://yourbrainonporn.com/ Website has quite a bit of interesting information. I don't have much against it and do not judge people who indulge in it including myself. Just that it is a new phenomenon in the history of our species. Pornography exited in some form or another before but not on this massive level and available in such convenience. 
Cheers. 

Well, as I said, those are my personal beliefs.

But you're taking what I say and trying to make it sound like I want the federal government involved in it. I don't. Gay marriage is something left up to the states, as is abortion.  Whether I'm pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage or not, either way the states should regulate it.  The federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction in either of those issues. 

And why is it "right-wing extremism" to be pro-Second Amendment? Last I checked, the Constitution is still the law of the land, however much politicians in both major parties have tried to trample on it over the last hundred years.

Thank you! I thought I was all alone out in the wilderness in this thread before I came across your post.  Nice to see common sense makin' a comeback!

Lol what will fatties do know ?

I saw some discussion about abortion so I have to make a quick point. A friend of mine pointed out the fact that the Bible states that life is in the blood and that there is no blood in the fetus until the start of the second trimester. I tried to confirm this independently but my Google-fu is weak. :/

The Bible states of LOT of things.  Best not to get into all of that. If we're to do everything the Bible says, life would be a lot different than what it is today.  So let's not pick and choose which little sentences to follow and then ignore others that we don't agree with.

So you're saying we should ignore the bible entirely?