@Happy_Killbot

What has been debunked?

This explanation by Richard Dawkins?

"Of course its counter intuitive, that you can get something from nothing, of course common sense doesn't allow you to get something from nothing."
"That's why its interesting."
"It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all."
"Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."
"But exactly whats meant by nothing."
"But whatever it is, it's very, very simple."


This notion has been debunked? 

"Because an Atheist actually believes nothing created everything, which is scientifically impossible."



This notion has been debunked?

"That nothing created everything?"



This notion has been debunked? 

"Or that Science has indeed disproved Religion conversation?"


Or, how about this notion, Is a book, able to create itself from nothing?

Something had to be directed physically, for a book to be created, didn't it?   

Because a book, can't be created from nothing right? 



When the college aged kids were asked that question, they had a surprised look on their faces, didn't they? 

So something had to happen for you, and I, both to be created right?

Or is that notion debunk-able as well? 


Because nothing can create nothing.

@Happy_Killbot

You know what, if those Atheist inmates who are incarcerated in prison, didn't commit their unnecessary crimes, then they wouldn't have found themselves in jail now would they?

"Yet there are fewer atheists in prison than there are in the general populace."

"It is fallacious to assume that because crimes are committed outside of religion that this should mean that there is no correlation between religious belief and crime. Studies show that religion fails to make people more moral, in other words the decisions to or not to rape, kill, steal, and torture happen regardless of religious practice." 

"So if religion serves no moral purpose, does it even have one, or is it just an idea virus, that spreads through populations and convinces them not to think to critically about their world, to accept authority at face value, and do whatever they say. 

"To promote injustice in the face of injustice and servility in the name of self declared righteousness."

Here's my fair and equal observation about your individual pro Atheist argument:

Religion serves a Purpose to those who are any Religion Oriented.

Anyone has the Right to pursue their Religious Freedoms, if they aren't personally hurting me, now don't they? 

Yes, any Religion has a Purpose, and no it's not an (Idea Virus, and that grouping of those two words, is a sly hint to me, is that you're maybe an Atheist Extremist?)

"is it just an idea virus, that spreads through populations and convinces them not to think to critically about their world, to accept authority at face value, and do whatever they say."

And those incarcerated Atheist inmates, they aren't, in a sense, a virus, of sorts, unto themselves, are they? 

Look at how they've convinced themselves, that by breaking the laws that landed themselves in jail with, that maybe their law breaking selves, should have been fair and equal to themselves, and to the rest of the Public, and now they've spread themselves, throughout the various prison populations, that are spread, throughout the United States huh? 

I see, the critical thinking that you're lamenting over, that same critical Atheist thinking wasn't able to keep them out of jail was it? 

It looks like they accepted their Atheist morals at face value, and their Atheist servitude speaks volumes unto itself, doesn't it? 

"To promote injustice in the face of injustice and servility in the name of self declared righteousness."

Those incarcerated Atheist are doing a great job, at promoting how they viewed justice, by their crimes, committed against the Public right?

Their Atheist self righteousness is self evident to me, is it self evident to you? 

(I watch and listen to the news daily, to see if any Religion is being blamed for some of humanities actions, against their other fellow human beings?)

"p.s. Is this really supposed to be a question? You should know if you watch and listen to the news daily or not, unless you have amnesia or something."

You're Atheist perception, is more educational, than any of the news, on the TV or radio, combined is.

None of those News Media outlets have anything on You.

When it comes to the Atheist reference material in general, Wikipedia has nothing on your Atheist perception either.

So please, continue to educate me? 

@billbatard

The Second Amendment as its currently written, favors the offenders, and the criminals, with their illegal arms.

Because the 2A is an exploitable Amendment, being exploited by the first time gun violence offender, and the offenders, and criminals, who have used both legal, and illegal arms to kill innocent people with.

So your comment is correct.

"Keeping a gun in your home will not make you safer"

@MayCaesar

When the people of a country leave their own country to come into the United States illegally, something is going on, isn't it? 

300 Sanctuary Cities, that have been created to pander, cater, and to baby, those millions of illegal immigrants?

Those businesses, in the U.S., that utilize those same illegal aliens, under the table, for their cheap labor. 

Mexico has issues.
Nicaragua has issues.
Venezuela has issues.
Along with the other 47 countries, that have issues, and their citizens are coming to the United States as well.

"I would say that no country can be great. Greatness is created and achieved by people, not by a governmental system or a chunk of land. And even then, what "greatness" is depends on the individual perspective."

@Vaulk

"I think the overlooked bottom line here is that, while gun ownership is the topic of the debate, this all boils down to "Should you have the right to defend yourself efficiently?"

Stephen Paddock, had more than enough guns to defend himself efficiently, then he used his guns to kill 59 people, including himself.

He took his right to defend himself, and changed the lives of his victims and Las Vegas forever.

He and the other Mass Shooters, have changed the way that millions of U.S. citizens, now view the Second Amendment, and it's fragily written word's.

393 million guns, illegal, and legal in the U.S., shows how fixated some of the legal and the illegal gun owners, view the Second Amendment, through their separate views?

One of these days, maybe a group of U.S. citizens, will get together, and hold the NRA, and every individual lawmaker, who has balked at addressing the fragiity of the Second Amendment, as its currently written?

And maybe rightfully, hold the NRA, and those individual lawmakers who have refused to address the Second Amendment as it's currently written, as being, in contempt of "violating the safety of the Public, by not Representing the safety for the Public," overall, instead of verbally reiterating over and over again, about the Second Amendment, and the very DNA of its language, and thats all that gets talked about?

A mass shooting happens, and all that gets verbally glossed is, the "Second Amendment, says that a citizen, has the right to bear arm's?"

BUT, what the Second Amendment, fails to say; Is that a citizen, has the right to bear arms against other citizens, and kill them with their legal arms? 

So the Second Amendment, as its written, 

("keeping a gun in your home well not make you safer.")

fails to make the rest of country, who doesn't want to own a gun, or have a gun at home, safer, because of how the Second Amendment, is fragily written.