Has anyone noticed

[SoCo]

So now we're into a semantic discussion between "respect" for the Left taking violent action vs you not being impressed by the BLM protests!

So why don't you explain the difference instead of talking out of both sides of your mouth?

I said respect. In subsequent posts you claimed I admired BLM and was impressed by them. Perhaps stop changing what I say and things can progress.

Right or wrong, BLM felt the government was depriving them of their rights. They fought government officials and destroyed government property. They also destroyed private property and looted which was as stupid as stupid can be but they did to the government just what the gun lobby threatens it will do if their rights are taken.

I could be mistaken (because I think the abortion issue is even dumber than the gun lobby's arguments so I don't follow it at all), but weren't the abortion clinics privately owned and operated? Thus, it is the equivalent of looting the Nike store in Chicago and has nothing to do with fighting government oppression.

 

[atlkvb]

Well, as you’re the sheeple in chief, let’s hear your defense, you sheeple.

I know here in Atlanta, the Leftists running this city are 100% clueless what to do about the rampant crime and random shootings. They want to open community "rap centers" to talk the criminals out of their violence. However they refuse to allocate additional resources to increase police foot patrols in troubled areas. Go figure?

It's getting so bad here, several areas inside the city are seriously considering seceding from the city in order to form their own police forces to address the rampant crime. Case in point: Buckhead community. Residents there do not feel safe in their own homes, and APD has no assurances of protecting them.

 

[SoCo]

That’s a fair point. I’d argue mine are victimless “crimes” (nothing was ever actually legislated, so it wasn’t a law I was breaking) and the ones you listed have victims. I get the hyperbolic intent. I look at laws a lot like processes in business. If people aren’t following or constantly failing your processes, the process is broken and needs fixed. And yea, I just fully decide to pick and choose what I’m going to do based on the amount of risk I’m willing to incur.

You said if you don't know the person you don't care. So it follows if you don't know the victim, you don't care about.

Of course, that assumes associating and mingling with people during the pandemic lockdowns is victimless too. I don't know whether it is but can appreciate the argument that it is not victimless. Then again, illegal drug-manufacturing and distributing are victimless crimes too.

and you are spot on about risk assessment. Too many are willing to take the risk of doing what they want at almost all costs.

 

[atlkvb]

Right or wrong, BLM felt the government was depriving them of their rights.

If you go back through the thread, I asked you directly what rights BLM was being deprived of? You didn't answer then and you STILL haven't answered. So what exactly did you "respect" about their protest? Apparently just the fact they were out there smashing and burning and looting for whatever justification they manufactured?

That must be it since you can't explain what was "respectable" about their protesting besides their willingness to employ random violence?

 

[roadtrasheer]

It all starts with mental health.

How do we protect the sane from the insane without infringing on the insanes/ mentality ill rights ?

 

[atlkvb]

illegal drug-manufacturing and distributing are victimless crimes too.

Gosh I swear I don't know how you can post something like that with a straight face?

 

[SoCo]

If you go back through the thread, I asked you directly what rights BLM was being deprived of? You didn't answer then and you STILL haven't answered. So what exactly did you "respect" about their protest? Apparently just the fact they were out there smashing and burning and looting for whatever justification they manufactured?

That must be it since you can't explain what was "respectable" about their protesting besides their willingness to employ random violence?

Pssssstttt..... I answered it: the 14th Amendment rights.

I am not saying I agree with their opinion that their rights were violated but those are the rights they claim were denied. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

 

[SoCo]

How do we protect the sane from the insane without infringing on the insanes/ mentality ill rights ?

Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have no mental health problems. Many are just assholes, many don't think through the consequences of their actions, and many others just don't care.

I am not one of those who thinks a person has to have a screw loose to murder another person.

Here is all you need to know about the issue of mental health. When medical marijuana was legalized in Virginia, the number of anxiety diagnoses skyrocketed. What do you want to bet the number of anxiety diagnoses plummets in 2024 when recreational marijuana is legalized?

 

[atlkvb]

I am not saying I agree with their opinion that their rights were violated but those are the rights they claim were denied. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

It's difficult for me because I don't respect their ability to violently protest even if they had a legitimate complaint. The fact you also admit they have no legitimate reason (or you at least think their reasoning is bogus) yet you still "respect" their ability to fly off the handle in a violent outburst is very difficult to grasp. It's almost as if you're saying...go ahead and show us how mad you can get...smash, burn, pillage....doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as you think you have a legitimate reason to do so!

You're OK with their willingness to just go off. I do have great difficulty with that type of reasoning.

 

[atlkvb]

I answered it: the 14th Amendment rights.

Kindly explain to me what in the 14th amendment allows people to go around on an angry rampage destroying private property and looting?

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

Fourteenth Amendment | Definition, Summary, Rights, Significance, & Facts

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or...

www.britannica.com

I don't expect you will offer a reasonable answer that in any way properly aligns with the BLM protestors, but at least you respect their ability to suggest they are not considered "emancipated" and are brave enough to protest that fact by destroying private property.

 

[roadtrasheer]

Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have no mental health problems. Many are just assholes, many don't think through the consequences of their actions, and many others just don't care.

I am not one of those who thinks a person has to have a screw loose to murder another person.

Here is all you need to know about the issue of mental health. When medical marijuana was legalized in Virginia, the number of anxiety diagnoses skyrocketed. What do you want to bet the number of anxiety diagnoses plummets in 2024 when recreational marijuana is legalized?

I agree that a person don't have to be crazy to kill they can just be evil. Many crimes out here is by the crazy

 

[SoCo]

It's difficult for me because I don't respect their ability to violently protest even if they had a legitimate complaint.

That is precisely my point. The gun lobby says they have their guns to fight the government if their rights are taken away, which would constitute a legitimate complaint. Obviously, the need for firearms would mean intended violence against the government in such a situation.

Then it follows you don't respect the gun lobby claiming it will use its firearms if their rights are deprived by the government, no?

Personally, I think both groups are morons.

 

[SoCo]

Kindly explain to me what in the 14th amendment allows people to go around on an angry rampage destroying private property and looting?

Nothing in that Amendment allows that behavior. I never suggested otherwise.

 

[Mitch D.]

How do we protect the sane from the insane without infringing on the insanes/ mentality ill rights ?

What do you consider "infringing on their rights?

 

[Mitch D.]

Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have no mental health problems. Many are just assholes, many don't think through the consequences of their actions, and many others just don't care.

I am not one of those who thinks a person has to have a screw loose to murder another person.

Here is all you need to know about the issue of mental health. When medical marijuana was legalized in Virginia, the number of anxiety diagnoses skyrocketed. What do you want to bet the number of anxiety diagnoses plummets in 2024 when recreational marijuana is legalized?

"Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else."

My god, how many absurd posts can you make in one thread?

 

[Mitch D.]

Kindly explain to me what in the 14th amendment allows people to go around on an angry rampage destroying private property and looting?

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

Fourteenth Amendment | Definition, Summary, Rights, Significance, & Facts

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or...

www.britannica.com

I don't expect you will offer a reasonable answer that in any way properly aligns with the BLM protestors, but at least you respect their ability to suggest they are not considered "emancipated" and are brave enough to protest that fact by destroying private property.

Yea, he's just throwing up strawmen now.

 

[Mitch D.]

That is precisely my point. The gun lobby says they have their guns to fight the government if their rights are taken away, which would constitute a legitimate complaint. Obviously, the need for firearms would mean intended violence against the government in such a situation.

Then it follows you don't respect the gun lobby claiming it will use its firearms if their rights are deprived by the government, no?

Personally, I think both groups are morons.

"Then it follows you don't respect the gun lobby claiming it will use its firearms if their rights are deprived by the government, no?"

Over simplified statement.

 

[SoCo]

"Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else."

My god, how many absurd posts can you make in one thread?

I've got a long way to go to match your foolishness.

 

[atlkvb]

That is precisely my point. The gun lobby says they have their guns to fight the government if their rights are taken away, which would constitute a legitimate complaint. Obviously, the need for firearms would mean intended violence against the government in such a situation.

Then it follows you don't respect the gun lobby claiming it will use its firearms if their rights are deprived by the government, no?

Personally, I think both groups are morons.

No not at all! First of all gun owners are NOT shooting up government buildings over attempts to restrict their 2nd ammendment rights. Fortunately most will simply vote to protect that Constitutionally guaranteed right. Your analogy fails both in its definitional as well as expository example. BLM was protesting against an alleged usurpation of their civil rights, but still employing violence falsley claiming such. Gun owners want their Constitutionally guranteed right to protest Government oppression, but are not using their firearms unless or until that oppression becomes evident.

There is no logical or factual comparison of the two and all of your arguments presented in this discussion conflating the two scenarios is not only incorrect but disengenuous. Go argue the point with someone else. I can't take you seriously.

 

[atlkvb]

Nothing in that Amendment allows that behavior. I never suggested otherwise.

You offered the 14th ammendment as justification BLM used to violently protest. Nothing in that ammendment approximates them not being considered equal or emancipated. Police don't go around arresting Black folks just because they're Black. Usually police encounter folks who they suspect are in violation of the Law or are in the act of violating the Law.

 

[SoCo]

No not at all! First of all gun owners are NOT shooting up government buildings over attempts to restrict their 2nd ammendment rights. Fortunately most will simply vote to protect that Constitutionally guaranteed right. Your alalogy fails both in its definitional as well as expository example. BLM was protesting against an alleged usurpation of their civil rights, but still employing violence falsley claiming such. Gun owners want their Constitutionally guranteed right to protest Government oppression, but are not using their firearms unless or until that oppression becomes evident.

There is no logical or factual comparison of the two and all of your arguments presented in this discussion conflating the two scenarios is not only incorrect but disengenuous. Go argue the point with someone else. I can't take you seriously.

You just said you can't respect a group's "ability to violently protest even if they had a legitimate complaint."

I am fine with that reasoning (although I disagree with it), but that would equally apply to the gun lobby who claim to have their firearms to violently combat the government.

Violently fighting the government in and of itself should be viewed in the same light regardless of which group does it. What you are doing is hypocritical, at best.

It is the 1st Amendment concept of viewpoint discrimination.

 

[SoCo]

You offered the 14th ammendment as justification BLM used to violently protest. Nothing in that ammendment approximates them not being considered equal or emancipated. Police don't go around arresting Black folks just because they're Black. Usually police encounter folks who they suspect are in violation of the Law or are in the act of violating the Law.

There you go again. Either you are too stupid to follow what I am saying or you are intentionally being dishonest and changing what I am saying because this is the 4th or 5th time you have done this.

I never said the 14th Amendment is a justification for the BLM riots. I haven't even suggested those riots were justified. You made that up.

Every sentence past your first...I agree with.

 

[atlkvb]

You just said you can't respect a group's "ability to violently protest even if they had a legitimate complaint."

I am fine with that reasoning (although I disagree with it), but that would equally apply to the gun lobby who claim to have their firearms to violently combat the government.

Violently fighting the government in and of itself should be viewed in the same light regardless of which group does it. What you are doing is hypocritical, at best.

It is the 1st Amendment concept of viewpoint discrimination.

FYI the Founders gave to us the right to rise up in armed opposition to government repression of our "guaranteed rights" when/if those rights are threatened or taken away. I've stated there is no justification for violent protesting ever! No gun owners are protesting what they're upset about in government using their firearms. As was pointed out in the thread by another poster, using armed opposition is a LAST RESORT against government tyranny, NOT a first response against any perceived gripe or slight against the government.

However according to your logic argued in this thread, the reason doesn't even really matter. Just be willing go out there & burn, loot, or even shoot up anything against the government you dislike!

 

[atlkvb]

I never said the 14th Amendment is a justification for the BLM riots.

You're the one who can't read you're so dizzy "spinning" how you answered a very direct question.

How was BLM being "oppressed"?

Your answer was "pssst I answered it....the 14th amendment". Now YOU go back and read your own answer. If you didn't mean to offer the 14th amendment to what BLM felt was justification for their violent protesting, why did you offer that as a response to the question?

Watch out kid....it can be hard trying to keep up with our friend @SoCo ! 🤪

 

[atlkvb]

If you go back through the thread, I asked you directly what rights BLM was being deprived of?

Pssssstttt..... I answered it: the 14th Amendment rights.

I never said the 14th Amendment is a justification for the BLM riots.

 

[JoePaEer]

US hasn’t recovered from bringing in slaves

Nearly the whole world used slaves then. Several parts still do.

 

[roadtrasheer]

What do you consider "infringing on their rights?

Locking them up before they have really broken the laws .... the old crazy homes we had .. part of me thinks we need that back I believe it would help the prison system and the cops . Part of me thinks it's wrong ....

 

[atlkvb]

Maybe the problem is with your eyes and not their conduct.

Does he really think gun rights owners would remain silent and keep their powder dry if someone in government attempted confiscation of all legally owned firearms? Apparently he does!

Obviously no one in government has been foolish enough to try and round up legally owned firearms! (or are they?)

 

[spartansstink]

The government actually prevented many businesses from conducting business in 2020. Religious centers too. The government flat out shut down the 6th Amendment as well.

And of course everyone is going to say it didn't rise to the level that they needed to fight back. They have to because they watched the government strip them on their rights and failed to back up their tough talk.

Just admit what everyone already knows: you will never use your firearms against the United States government.

They did - but only temporarily. Some, openly defied them anyway. Most that were shut down weren't done so by the government but because they already were operating on such thin margins they couldn't have handled any type of shut down - forced or unforced. For example, losing an oven for a couple of weeks and not receiving the parts would have had the same effect.

I think you're mistaken about the 6th Amendment, which guarantees you a trial by jury. I think you are probably referring to the 4th with your above argument.

See, the government didn't strip anyone of their rights. They still have them. They only limited them for a short while. For example, the government states that I can't carry my sidearm into a school to watch a basketball game. I still have the right to own that gun, I just can't take into a school. I think you are confusing the denial of rights with limiting them. I could use another hundred examples. Ultimately, it boils down to the principle of consent of the governed - we give the government permission to operate, not the other way around.

Sorry, but most people feel like I do. Mel's Diner shutting down, and I'm no longer able to get Reuben, isn't reason enough to take up arms. Going to church and sitting in the parking lot listening to the preacher over the radio instead of sitting in the sanctuary isn't cause to go on a killing spree. You need to give people more credit than you do.

Last, I try to never deal in absolutes. The odds are that you are correct, but one can never say never, just as some of the people on here will always talk tough.

 

[SoCo]

FYI the Founders gave to us the right to rise up in armed opposition to government repression of our "guaranteed rights" when/if those rights are threatened or taken away. I've stated there is no justification for violent protesting ever! No gun owners are protesting what they're upset about in government using their firearms. As was pointed out in the thread by another poster, using armed opposition is a LAST RESORT against government tyranny, NOT a first response against any perceived gripe or slight against the government.

However according to your logic argued in this thread, the reason doesn't even really matter. Just be willing go out there & burn, loot, or even shoot up anything against the government you dislike!

They sure did. That was in a time when the citizens comprised the nations army and they had the same weapons as the us government. Today the government has tanks, submarines, napalm and military grade drones. You and the gun lobby pretending to fight them is cute, but the definition of stupidity.

like I said, blm at least has the balls to do what you and the gun lobby threaten. both groups are idiots. For some reason you pretend I am supporting blm. You and the gun lobby say you have your guns to fight the government when your rights are infringed upon, but in 2020 we all saw how tough you really were. At least blm acted. I can respect someone who backs up their talk with action. THere is nothing more annoying than loudmouth blowards (ie, the gun lobby).

And for the record, I think both groups are unjustified and stupid. The difference is the left puts their money where their mouth is.

btw, once I saw your millennial shit with the other posts, I didn’t read them. The fact you think that child shit is witty is embarrassing. You are a grown man. Act like it.

 

[spartansstink]

BLM in my opinion have no legitimate argument. They stand by silently when Black youth kill other Black people at random across America. They have no opposition to the organized genocide being carried out by Planned Parenthood against innocent Black babies who are slaughtered at rates more than two to one (over other races), and the crime young Black criminals reign down on even Black people goes without their protest.

They have a right to protest, but as I said that does not give them the right to destroy private property, especially considering how tame they are over Black lives which should matter more than police chasing suspects down and some of them ending up dead because they either foolishly resist or flee arrest.

I will always believe, no matter the group and/or how much I agree or disagree with them, that everyone has a right (more like a duty) to protest government actions they deem unfair - whether its real or perceived.

I'm also not against the use of violence to achieve those ends - as a last resort.

The only problem though, I realize, with this thinking is this (and Dr. King realized as well): When you resort the violence, you change the dynamics of the reason you are fighting in the first place. Now the narrative becomes about the violence rather the cause, and you lose in the end.

 

[SoCo]

They did - but only temporarily. Some, openly defied them anyway. Most that were shut down weren't done so by the government but because they already were operating on such thin margins they couldn't have handled any type of shut down - forced or unforced. For example, losing an oven for a couple of weeks and not receiving the parts would have had the same effect.

I think you're mistaken about the 6th Amendment, which guarantees you a trial by jury. I think you are probably referring to the 4th with your above argument.

See, the government didn't strip anyone of their rights. They still have them. They only limited them for a short while. For example, the government states that I can't carry my sidearm into a school to watch a basketball game. I still have the right to own that gun, I just can't take into a school. I think you are confusing the denial of rights with limiting them. I could use another hundred examples. Ultimately, it boils down to the principle of consent of the governed - we give the government permission to operate, not the other way around.

Sorry, but most people feel like I do. Mel's Diner shutting down, and I'm no longer able to get Reuben, isn't reason enough to take up arms. Going to church and sitting in the parking lot listening to the preacher over the radio instead of sitting in the sanctuary isn't cause to go on a killing spree. You need to give people more credit than you do.

Last, I try to never deal in absolutes. The odds are that you are correct, but one can never say never, just as some of the people on here will always talk tough.

The crux of my point was the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment is not limited to juries. People rotted in jail for literally years under the government's pandemic "emergency". The Fourth Amendment is searches and seizures. That is inapplicable here. You don't know what you are talking about.

And BTW I know you will never take up arms against our government. Neither will anyone else on this forum. So perhaps everyone should stop with the tough guy talk. You all sound stupid.

I mean, how bad is it when BLM shows you up?

 

[atlkvb]

I will always believe, no matter the group and/or how much I agree or disagree with them, that everyone has a right (more like a duty) to protest government actions they deem unfair - whether its real or perceived.

I'm also not against the use of violence to achieve those ends - as a last resort.

The only problem though, I realize, with this thinking is this (and Dr. King realized as well): When you resort the violence, you change the dynamics of the reason you are fighting in the first place. Now the narrative becomes about the violence rather the cause, and you lose in the end.

Violence in defense of a righteous cause is justifiable and prudent where injustice is the alternative. BLM had no righteous cause for their violence, and the injustice was the harm they caused to owners of private businesses who had done nothing to them.

 

[spartansstink]

Mental health is a scapegoat and used by the gun lobby to blame something else. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have no mental health problems. Many are just assholes, many don't think through the consequences of their actions, and many others just don't care.

I am not one of those who thinks a person has to have a screw loose to murder another person.

Here is all you need to know about the issue of mental health. When medical marijuana was legalized in Virginia, the number of anxiety diagnoses skyrocketed. What do you want to bet the number of anxiety diagnoses plummets in 2024 when recreational marijuana is legalized?

I agree with you 100% on this.

But, the right (gun lobby) has to have something just as idiotic to claim causation as the left does in blaming an inanimate object, i.e. the gun itself.

The problem isn't guns or mental health, its a lack of morals. Church membership is at its lowest levels in recorded history. The number of Christians - true or so called - is even lower. On top of that, it's only going to get worse.

 

[atlkvb]

The fact you think that child shit is witty is embarrassing. You are a grown man. Act like it.

The fact you respect someone who storms off in protest smashing up or burning things or it proves how committed you are if you are willing to do so is childish. It's even more infantile to suggest taking up arms just because you're mad over something or you feel slighted over your perceived "rights". You're a grown ass man but you think like a little spoiled brat.

 

[spartansstink]

The crux of my point was the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment is not limited to juries. People rotted in jail for literally years under the government's pandemic "emergency". The Fourth Amendment is searches and seizures. That is inapplicable here. You don't know what you are talking about.

And BTW I know you will never take up arms against our government. Neither will anyone else on this forum. So perhaps everyone should stop with the tough guy talk. You all sound stupid.

I mean, how bad is it when BLM shows you up?

You weren't clear in what you were referring to with your 6th Amendment statement. It was disjointed and unexplained. The point I implied you were trying to make was the government was taking away a person's rights without warrants, which would make more sense with the reasoning you were using. Sorry if I misunderstood you but if you go back to your post you will see what I'm referring to.

I assure you I do know what I'm talking about. NOBODY "rotted in jail for literally years" because of the pandemic. Hyperbolic speech at its best. Now, its you who is sounding stupid. That said, anytime you want to get into a Constitutional discussion I'm game.

Second, as I stated, you are probably right. That's the benefit of living in the land we do. We prefer to institute change with the ballot rather than the bullet. The majority of the people in the US feel this way which is why our Constitution and government has lasted as long as it has.

If you feel that BLM is "showing me up", then I agree with you completely. I can live with that because I'm mature in my beliefs. They can show me up all day with their silly actions, but the fact that you believe they are shows that perhaps you are just as immature in your thinking as they are.

 

[spartansstink]

Violence in defense of a righteous cause is justifiable and prudent where injustice is the alternative. BLM had no righteous cause for their violence, and the injustice was the harm they caused to owners of private businesses who had done nothing to them.

I agree. But, unfortunately, in today's world what you and I might deem as "righteous" is a complete anathema to someone else's righteousness. Those people I believe felt they had every right to break windows and take Nikes as payback for the undesirable conditions they believe they live in and under. The concept that one accepts responsibility for one's actions and therefore is a product of the choices he/she has made, is a foreign concept to them. It will always be somebody else's fault - a cop, Trump, the teachers, et. al - but never their own.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree. But, unfortunately, in today's world what you and I might deem as "righteous" is a complete anathema to someone else's righteousness. Those people I believe felt they had every right to break windows and take Nikes as payback for the undesirable conditions they believe they live in and under. The concept that one accepts responsibility for one's actions and therefore is a product of the choices he/she has made, is a foreign concept to them. It will always be somebody else's fault - a cop, Trump, the teachers, et. al - but never their own.

Very well stated. To me the entire BLM movement lacks credibility due to factors I mentioned earlier in the thread. However as you eloquently stated, the way we resolve perceived injustice or violations of our rights in this country is through the ballot not with bullets. We use bullets when there is no other recourse against tyranny or loss of our unalienable right to Freedom.

 

[SoCo]

I agree with you 100% on this.

But, the right (gun lobby) has to have something just as idiotic to claim causation as the left does in blaming an inanimate object, i.e. the gun itself.

The problem isn't guns or mental health, its a lack of morals. Church membership is at its lowest levels in recorded history. The number of Christians - true or so called - is even lower. On top of that, it's only going to get worse.

Agreed. But we blame inanimate objects like meth and heroin for deaths everyday.

And religion has nothing to do with it. Historically, religion has been responsible for more sensless deaths than just about anything else. And Chrsitianity is just as dirty as the rest of them.

One need not be Christian to be moral. If going to a Christian church helps a person be moral, I'm all for it and that is certainly a good thing, but it is not a requirement.

 

[roadtrasheer]

Agreed. But we blame inanimate objects like meth and heroin for deaths everyday.

And religion has nothing to do with it. Historically, religion has been responsible for more sensless deaths than just about anything else. And Chrsitianity is just as dirty as the rest of them.

One need not be Christian to be moral. If going to a Christian church helps a person be moral, I'm all for it and that is certainly a good thing, but it is not a requirement.

Christians have not caused a single death . Religion on the other hand is deadly.
Heroine, fentanyl, meth , alcohol and guns has caused many deaths..but in all cases it was a humans choice to do so.
Guns is a constitutional RIGHT
All the others is not ....way big difference. A convention of states could change the constitution.