2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I have been a Secular Humanist since the early 1970s.  My parents are Lutheran and Methodist, and due to their influence I didn't give religion a though as a child, but as I entered high school, I started noticing how religious behavior did not relate to public behavior.

It wasn't until I entered military service that I started to analyze the various religions.  On looking at the various gods,  I found that all of them exhibited severe behavioral problems, thus contradicting their supposed 'perfection'.  Also the fact that the gods did all their major communications to individuals in ancient times and that individuals who talk to any of the gods, of various religions, today, are often found to have psychiatric problems...

I therefore determined that all religions are based on ancient stories, that have little basis in fact, and all gods are myth.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

The comments by Mr Eliot are just NRA nonsense.  He makes the US sound like Iran.  This is the stuff I hear from patients with PTSD.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

In today's society there is not rational reason a citizen should be carrying a weapon, outside of employment requirements, such a police or those who transport money or prisoners.

Anyone else is a hazard to the average citizen.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

It is quite obvious that the 2nd Amemdment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves.  It does not specifiy a right for individual citizens.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I quite agree with this opinion.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

As an ex-Army Armorer, I have no problems with guns.  But as a health care provider (PA-C),  I find it quite disturbing that any individual, in an urban setting should feel so unsafe that he/she have a desire to carry any firearm for protection.

This is no longer the old west, where a large percentage of the citizens visited bars, got drunk and carried gun.

Vancouver/Clark County is not an appropriate community to carry a weapon, unless he/she is a police officer or an armored car crew member.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context