We need more GOD and less WOKE.

Dang

So god will stop school shootings? How?

It's all about basic morality. We used to teach that in our public schools when this nation was founded. The Progressives did away with that. Then they got rid of school prayer. They gone so far as expelling a student in San Diego, Ca. for just bringing a Bible to school.

When the left kicked God out of schools they also kicked morality at the same time. Without morals you get school violence. The Uvalde, Tx shooting wasn't caused by a student but clearly the man had no morals.

I have about 19mil people who beg to differ.

With the power of God!
:P

And anime?

Nope... Unfortunately even the Lord himself can not stop anime.
:P

Of course not, he hasen't exactly stopped much has he.

He could, but he'd have to take away your free will. Something he doesn't do.

There wouldn't be much free will if he did...

If he was gonna stop 'em anywhere you'd think it'd be church.

Sad take this ⬆️⬆️⬆️

I regularly attended a prayer group at my Highschool ten years ago. I also know for a fact these groups continue because they’re student run.

Why is it illegal to teach basic Christianity in schools. It didn't used to be. We used to teach the Bible in our public schools from day 1 of the United States of America. Who was the idiot who made it illegal?

illegal to teach Christianity but teaching little boys in preschool that they can turn into little girls if they want to is encouraged.

I’m a conservative and a Catholic myself, but allow me to remind you of the Constitution. The Bible should be taught in schools objectively as a book, not religiously. It is important that students understand the Bible, or at least its famous stories and parables, because biblical allusions are incredibly frequent in even modern culture. But we, however, have no right whatsoever to force religious teachings on other people’s children. The Constitution of the United States of America protects and demands that statement. Leave religious teaching to parents and sunday school.
As a matter of fact, it is best if students also learn about the contents of the Quran and the Torah- not learn about them religiously, but in an educational and scholarly manner.

I agree. What they used to teach in public schools up until the Progressive era of the early 20th century, was just that. It wasn't religious teaching. What was taught was the concepts and history that all Christians could agree with. Along with the common morality out of the Bible that Christian religions teach, along with most of the rest of the world's religions.

For whatever reason, atheists got offended by it and started accusing us of "shoving religion down their throats". The tables have completely turned now and now atheists "shove" their "religion" down our throats with the false claim that science is on their side. Science is not on anyone's side on anyone's side.

My middle school history course only 4 or 5 years ago or so actually taught about all three books, but I think that most reasonable atheists are touchy about is what is being branded objectively moral

That is amazing. What 3 books. Is it the Bible and 2 others or do you mean the Old and New Testament plus 1 other book?

Is one of those books the Quran? For whatever insane reason the anti-religious left, who will expel a student for bring a Bible to school, will also turn around and teach from the Quran and even in some schools have students recite Islamic prayers. So, as it turns out, it is just Christianity and Judaism that the left hates.

I have no problem if schools want to teach the historical and cultural significance of the Bible, the Torah or the Quran. I have no problem with schools teaching the history in those books (well, except the Quran is not a history book, it is a book of commandments from Allah to Mohammad). I have no problem with schools teaching the morals contained in those books.

I do however have a problem with teachers having students perform Islamic ceremonies that are used when a person converts to Islam. And yes, that happened. I read about it maybe a year or two ago and I think it happened in Northern California. And the teacher wasn't even a Muslim.

Schools are there to educate children and not convert them to any religion or convert them away from any religion.

That wasn’t how it was in my experience. It was the full KJV bible (since, even though I am catholic, I live in the Bible Belt), the Torah (yeah essentially just the Old Testament, but they explained how the Jews interpret it), and the Quran, but there weren’t any Muslim prayers involved. Just good old scholarship.

That is awesome. I think it is because you live in the Bible Belt that this type of education was possible. I was born in the Bible Belt but my family moved west when I was a small child. I live in Utah now.

I haven't read the Catholic bible but I have read a few passages from it and compared it top the KJV. I didn't see any conceptual differences. In most cases the texts were identical. I am no Biblical scholar but I don't think there is anything in the Douay–Rheims Bible and King James Version that contradict each other. And I don't look at the KJV as the final word. We do not have the original manuscripts which all versions of the Bible come from. We have copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts. I believe some errors have crept in. I am not invalidating the Bible, even with a small number of translation and transcription errors it is still the word of God.

I am not a Catholic but I have a lot of respect for the Catholic religion. I'm not too fond of your current Pope but that does not mean I have lost any respect for the Catholics. I have a friend who is also Catholic and he isn't to fond of the current Pope either but he is not running away from the Church.

Catholics do a whole lot of good around the world. The religion I belong to (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You may know us as Mormons but that is not the name of our church) doesn't have the infrastructure to help people like the Catholic church does so we have partnered with the Catholics in a lot of charitable efforts.

Because we don’t need the government telling us how to be Christians.

I should note, it is not illegal for private schools to teach their students their religion. But public schools are government funded. That’s the difference and why it would be a poor decision to allow the government to control our faith as well.

I agree that it would be an awful decision for the government to control your faith but that is not what used to be taught. It was basic concepts and morals that are not unique to any Christian religion. The problem is that morals are not being taught in schools AND in the home. There are a lot of Christians who claim to be very devout who are also very immoral. I am not accusing anyone or any specific religion. I am just saying that this is what I have observed.

Atheists claim they don't need God or the Bible to be moral. While that is technically that is true, it is factually false. Take God and the Bible or any other religious book away and where do those moral come from? There is a societal morality that is built on Christianity but our current societal morals, what we generally thing are right and wrong are nearly gone. Without something solid to hold as a standard for society to try to live their life by they collapse.

Thomas Jefferson took selected verses and chapters out of the New Testament and compiled them into a book. He required all freshmen congressmen to read his book. There was no commentary from Jefferson, it was just passages lifted directly from the KJV of the Bible.

It wasn't about government controlling religion, it is about religion controlling politicians. There are no scummier people on the earth than a politician. They need to be controlled by something. They certainly don't listen to the people they claim to represent. Their only concern is creating a show that makes them look good so they can get re-elected.

Well it's not so much 'religion controlling politicians' but reminding politicians that 'God controls politicians'. Years ago I said this, "If I was president I'd have this verse taped to both sides of every door in the White House with zero exceptions as a constant reminder - 'All nations are below Him(God) counted less than nothing but vanity. Book of Isiah.' And if people complained then they can go pound pavement."

That is a great idea. I would vote for you.

A short prayer, maybe a verse reading, and the pledge of allegiance. All done during homeroom.

Actually we had an after-school classroom to ourselves as well as Wednesday morning prayer schedule held at breakfast. These became very popular after 9/11 and during the Iraq war as they also acted as additional grief support for families of victims and soldiers.

We need to arm the students

We do need to teach gun safety and familiarization with arms in schools take away the mystery.

I’m glad my dad thought me those things

All that would do is make school shooting numbers rise like crazy

SecretSpectre was joking, I think

poke bro it was a joke

I'm aware

How 2 stop gun violence for dummies:
Step 1: Ban semi-automatics
Step 2: Restrict other weapons with background checks
Step 3: Enforce
Step 4: Enjoy!

The problem with the left is they are preached all of that nonsense and no one stops to actually think things through.

Fact. If you are talking about rifles, semi-automatics are the least used firearm in school shootings. Number 1 is the shotgun and after that is handguns.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. So the question is do you just mean rifles or all semi-automatics?
There are over 360 Million firearms legally owned by citizens of the United States. So by banning semi-automatics do you mean confiscation or do you mean just stop selling semi-automatics?

Fact. All firearms sold at a gun store or a gun show can only be purchased AFTER a background check is run. The problem is not the background checks, it is the government's horribly maintained database. There are a whole lot of people who should be in that database who are not and vice versa. This is by design because Democrat politicians ultimately want to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all firearms. If they maintained that database then the very small handful of people who actually legally buy a gun and commit murder with it, would be stopped. The majority of shootings are done with stolen weapons or weapons purchased on the black market (many of which were also stolen).

Fact. 99% of all gun owners never use their guns to harm people. The other 1%, the majority of them only used their gun to defend their life or the lives of others.

Fact. A study at the University of Florida found that of the reported uses of firearms, firearms are used 3.6% times more to prevent crime than to commit crime. So with that in mind then if you take firearms away from people then crime and murders will naturally increase. And remember, that is only the reported uses of firearms. There is a significant higher number of times where a crime was stopped just by the intended victim showing they have a firearm. Those rarely get reported because no crime happened.

Fact. Disarming America or even banning semi-automatics is not going to stop school shootings. It just won't. The worst school disaster in US history happened in the 1920's when a disgruntled janitor set a school on fire when school was in session. He didn't use a gun.

Fact. More people are killed in fist fights than by all firearms or knives.

Fact. More people are killed by knives than by all firearms.

Fact. More people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms.

Fact. More people are killed by cars than all of the above.

Ever heard of a magical place up north, where gun deaths are almost non-existent? Canada? No, obviously not. Also "3.6% times more?" choose whether it's 3.6% more (which is statistically insignificant) or 3.6 times more, which can't be true, since by that logic shootings in Canada should happen every day. But they don't. BS statistics.

So if Canada is so crime free (and I believe you, you do not have nearly the gun violence that the US does) then why did Trudeau just 1,500 different types of what anti-gun people call "assault" rifles?

"Assault" is a verb, not an adjective. A rifle cannot assault you, only a person can assault you and they don't need a rifle to do that.

Not all of that 3.6 times a gun was used to prevent crime where they discharged. And again this is ONLY what is reported to the police so the actual number is higher than that. There is no way of knowing the actual number. Now in percentages 3.6 would be insignificant, but in times it is not. That means that for every 1,000 crimes there are 3,600 crimes that were prevented. For every 1,000,000 crimes there were 3,600,000 crimes that were prevented.

So I did a very quick internet search. I didn't go to any website that espouses conservatives ideology, I just picked the 1st one in a search. I don't know anything about this website but here are the stats that they have accumulated.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country#:~:text=Violent%20Crime%20Rates%20by%20Country%202022%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2031%20more%20rows%20

The United States of America has the 77th highest homicide rate. Canada is 128th. Homicides includes all murders, even school shootings. If you exclude the cities with the strictest gun laws and the highest murder rates (because those two things go hand in hand) then we drop way below Canada in homicides.

In the last 29 years about 120 children have been murdered in school shootings yet the media makes it seems like our children are dropping like flies because of school shootings. Often they quote stats like there have been 27 school shootings in 2022. That number is NOT the number of mass shootings like in Uvalde, Texas. That is any time a firearm has been discharged in or near a school regardless if anyone was killed or not. One of those school shootings happened when a kids handgun accidentally went off inside of his book bag and grazed another kid's arm.

I am not trying to justify murder or even accidental deaths, but the problem is NOT about guns. It never was. It is about homicidal psychopaths. Homicidal psychopaths don't care what tool they use to kill, they just want to kill. If you think you cannot commit a mass murder with a knife then you are mistaken. I watched a video of a guy with a knife take down 6 or 7 armed police.

None of my three DGU's were reported, because all three pissed their pants (not actually) and ran away. I never had to draw.

That's awesome. Knock on wood but I have never needed to use a gun for anything other than a hole punch for paper. I hope I never have to.

Hollywood portrays criminals who seem to have absolute no fear of anything and the left buys into that myth. There might be a few very psychotic people like that but for the most part everyone wants to live, even psychotic people. No one wants to get shot at.

I don't think you are in the minority at all. I think that most of the time bad guys will mentally (and probably on occasion, physically) wet their pants and take off running just when they see you have a gun. And I think that 3.6 is a very, very low estimate.

I live in Northwest Indiana next to Chiraq, so the incidents I see here may be more than others.

The McCloskys probably didn't expect to see one near their home.

77th vs 128th, your own stats, says otherwise.

That wouldn't stop anything. Just look at Chicago, NYC, or any of the other Democratic run shi*tholes.

Then why don't those states have a problem?

That is partly true. I used to live in Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City is a border city. There is Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas. Before the guy who started Cabela's decided to retire and sell his chain of sporting goods stores to Bass Pro Shop, there is a Bass Pro Shop in Missouri and a Cabela's in Kansas.

I bought a bolt action hunting rifle and a shotgun at Cabela's in Kansas with no problem. A couple of years later Cabela's had a sale on a semi-automatic handgun that I wanted. I went to Cabela's and they said they could sell me this gun but I would have to go the Cabela's in St Louis, Missouri to pick it up. That is a 4 hour drive. Because I lived in Missouri they wouldn't sell me a handgun in Kansas. I went to Bass Pro Shop and found out that that particular handgun wasn't really on sale because Bass Pro Shop sold it for the exact same price. I bought it there instead of driving 4 hours.

Buying a firearm in one state and taking it home to another state falls under the greatly expanded Commerce clause in the Constitution (Franklin Roosevelt wanted more power and control so he twisted an interpretation of the Commerce clause that would make your head spin). I am not sure if the law against me buying a handgun in Kansas is a federal law or if it is a Kansas law, regardless, there are laws prohibiting the purchase of at least time firearms in a state you are not a resident of.

It is a federal law. You can buy a long gun in any State, but a handgun only in your State of residence.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I just didn't know for sure. I just know my own personal experience.

You are welcome. I think that was part of the '79 infringement.

That's what we should call all of these laws the left wants enacted. All of us should just call them "infringements" because that is exactly what they are. They want death by a thousand cuts because they know they cannot just take the 2nd Amendment down. Given enough time they think they can invalidate through thousands of tiny laws that just pick away at it.