Agnostic.com

13 18

Why is this?

HippieChick58 9 Nov 9

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Unbelievable! And the governments first job is to protect the people.

2

$$$$$$ + maroons = Derp & Death

1

I totally understand the end result here but have to comment on the scanning of shoes. The last time I was on a plane we only had to remove our shoes. Somebody walked past us and then we were allowed to put our shoes back on. The shoes were not scanned. It was all a simple inspection.

6

Blah blah fucking blah. Glad I live in Australia. Your gun laws scare the shit out of me. Not anti America before you jump down my naive, well exercised, very vocal throat. Just pro gun laws. And yes I grew up in Regional Australia shooting for food. Not with a fucking semi automatic though. Anyhoo, hurrah and Peace out. ?

@JBD1017

It's simply pathetic!, The NRA ( National Riffle Association) own and have our politicians by the balls! We have Pussy politicians who expect to receive their NRA check in the mail instead of doing what's right for the American People!

1

You just want to confiscate all the BB guns, don't you?

7

Wow. I am surprised to see so many people here are 2nd amendment fans.

2nd amendment isn't "god-given" and it is hopelessly outdated. If you think it is some how going to protect you against government tyranny, I am sorry you are delusional.

And the image of your fellow citizens as crazy barbarians from whom only your guns can protect you and your loved ones.... this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This weapon fetish is mostly an extension of self-image. The weapons manufacturers are laughing their way to the bank thinking about this pathetic and artificially created self-image extensions.

Yes. It’s both outdated and misinterpreted… But money buys propaganda, and dead people don’t..

I’ve guns, loaded.. and may actually sell some as I’m no longer a father protecting his family in the deep woods. Never had any military assault weapons with banana clips, though. Strange, raising said family in the woods of the far west - I never needed an assault weapon. And had the government ‘wanted us,’ any of their numerous ‘black helicopters’ practicing night flights over our ‘uninhabited forest’ could have taken us out.

Well stated.

4

Right. Why is it that society is expected to adjust to the proliferation of guns (provide mass shooter training, arm teachers with guns, etc) but gun owners get what ever they want in terms of regulations, that help no one but themselves?

3

First...all those incidents you mentioned were not a guaranteed Constitutional right. Second...I haven't seen one gun control law presented that would have prevented ANY of the mass shootings. Third...there are restrictions on gun ownership in place already, so it's not like it's the wild west in regards to that. Sadly, there is no law that can be passed that will make us secure and safe 100% of the time from 100% of the people. Hell, the cops even came out and interviewed the guy and did nothing...then he went out and legally purchased the pistol! I would like to see the killings end also, but it just appears to be emotional reactions and a "Do something" mentality, without any real evidence that any of the proposed solutions would actually work. Well, I take that back, they would work, but only in eroding more of our rights and ability to protect ourselves from violent people and government dictatorship.

BTW - Switzerland is behind us in per capita gun ownership and you don't see mass shooting there all the time? Perhaps it's not the guns, but the society? Look at the countries in this link, and other than Iraq, all are pretty peaceful in this regard.

[deseretnews.com]

The second amendment can be modified to join the 21st century. It's called an amendment. It's not abided by anyway as there is supposed to be no standing army, just state militia's.

@powder Yes, I realize that it can be modified. I am aware of the changes to address slavery, women's right to vote, and prohibition, as well as many others over the last 242 years. That is a minor point that is a tangent to my main argument. Also, while the Constitution doesn't specifically call for a standing army, it does give Congress the power to raise such an army via the many acts which have been passed to deal with threats throughout the years (and thus the legal grounds for the standing Army we have today). This system allows, at any moment, the ability for Congress to pass various acts to easily and quickly modify the size (increase or decrease)- without the need of states ratification of Constitutional amendments, which can be a lengthy and complicated process, to deal with present and immediate threats.

[britannica.com]

@jondspen that's my point. Because there is now a permanent standing army there is no need for every citizen to be armed. Other countries, which have laws specifically for their standing armies, have those armies as insurance against enemies within. Prime ministers are not also commander in chiefs. As you say, congress has legislated for the military for various reasons like the rise of communism and the cold war, but that was not a scenario when the constitution was written. So accordingly, if congress has been adaptable in establishing an army it can be adaptable disarming its citizenry and separating the executive from the military, as other Western governments do. This keeps the military politically neutral.

@powder No standing armies was once so very true but then we got involved in many things over seas and thought it might be wise to have standing armies. Our Founding Fathers told us early on that we should not do that but someone knew there was money to be made.

@powder Sure...and just like in Nazi Germany, China, Russia...disarming the population worked out so well. for the general citizenry. The second amendment wasn't written in so we could protect the government. It was added so we could protect ourselves FROM an overbearing government.

@DenoPenno I agree...and in fact Eisenhower even warned us about the rise of the military industrial banking complex, but was ignored. Which in my opinion is further proof that we as citizens need to be armed to protect OUR freedoms.

You are foolish if you think someone else should protect you and safeguard your rights and freedoms.

@jondspen that's fine then remove your president as commander in chief. Hope your rednecks understand the military has predator drones. Two of your examples were communist, the other was fascist.
I do agree 100% with your last paragraph, so if you are not a hypocrite, start agitating your govt to recall all their o/s bases from those foolish countries that let them in. Please start with Sth Korea, so there can be peace on the peninsular. Them the rest of Asia, Europe, Africa. As Afghanistan is known as the destroyer of empires, continue your 17 year war there.

@powder Well your first paragraph in response is completely off the topic of gun control. I guess since you can't make a logical and reasonable argument, you think to pull me off on a tangent on topics completely unrelated. And again, you choose to ignore the main point of my argument...to talk about the economic structure of the countries, not the condition of the citizen of those countries when guns were confiscated.

Second paragraph - I served MY country (one which you don't live in, so not sure why you find the need to tell us how to govern ourselves) for 6 years in the Marine Corps. I have studied history as well as stay abreast of current actions by said government and what I can garner about the CIA. I try my best to inform my fellow citizen about the lies and deception they are a part of, but unfortunately, most are apathetic. I also write my congressional leaders, something most Americans can't do b/c they don't even know who they are, to voice my concerns and wishes for governmental policy direction. Of course, that doesn't matter b/c corporations run this country, not the people (too many are afraid to stand up, or just to comfortable with cheap gas and 10 different ESPN channels to watch). As former military, I am very aware of the hypocrisy by undermining democratically elected governments with the blood and lives of our young men and women (some might say still boys and girls). And BTW...your country participated in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start, recently declared new missions (see link) in these countries, and typically is in lock step with US policy, so you might want to cut back on throwing the 'hypocrite' label around.

[smh.com.au]

Finally, it's pretty obvious you are getting frustrated at your inability to make a reasonable argument, because you now have turned to name calling and insults in your rhetoric (rednecks - hypocrites), which isn't surprising after reading the judgmental tone your profile bio conveys. I am not in agreement with a lot of US policy, both domestic and abroad, and I am doing everything I can as a disabled veteran to support freedom and democracy...even if that means protecting the freedoms and rights of people I personally can't stand. I do so b/c I honor freedom which I feel should be afforded to all, even if I don't think many actually deserve it.

@jondspen "remove your president as commander in chief" is directly related to gun control as the commander in chief supposedly is not meant to have a standing army, when the constitution was written.
I have every right to comment on "your" countries foreign policy as it affects us all. Domestic policy I agree, none of my business. I was pointing out the 2nd amendment is not just about the right to bare arms, it is also about state militias and standing armies which is something many of your peers seem to be unaware of.
Rednecks are rednecks, have them in Australia too. If you are hoarding an arsenal for the day you have to fight the government, IMO you are a redneck.
Kudos to you for being proactive in writing letters etc. If you find the term hypocrite offensive I don't know why as it doesn't apply to you.
Australia is so far up America's arse we are no longer a sovereign country, agree with you there. If we were true friends, we would have quietly informed the US to pull there head in a long time ago. Instead we are a "metoo" lackey.
Why is it when you confront in 2018, offence is taken? We have both written a fair bit here, so we are both thinking. It's all good as far as I'm concerned.

@powder President as command in chief has NOTHING with my personal rights to possess firearms. And I addressed the reason why we have a standing army, which is granted via the constitution to be raised by congress...just not via constitutional amendment, for the reasons I previously stated. And technically the President doesn't have a standing army. He is granted authority to direct the operations of the army that is controlled by congress (he can't send them to war, he can only direct operational and strategic policy once congress has approved said actions). If congress tomorrow voted to disband all military tomorrow, the President can't keep some of them b/c he wants to, or just go out and raise another. Yes, I know there is a lot of grey in that area, and sometimes the lines are muddled, but ultimately that is how the system works.

Sure, you can comment about our foreign policy, but again, the topic posted was gun control. I don't see how me owning a gun, or 500 of them has anything to do with US foreign policy, your countries sovereignty, or threatens you personal safety. Not like I am going to come to Australia and go on a mass shooting spree with my USA guns. Me owning a gun or not would not have stopped Bush from invading Iraq to line his families big oil pockets

"Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Take out the word "a free" and yes, it does read that the only reason we have arms as citizens is to be ready to serve the state as militia. In fact, taking your POV, those two words are not even needed, so why are they there? IMO, those two very simple words completely change the intention by not only protecting the freedom of the State, but also the freedoms of the people within that State. In that time there was not a standing army, and even when there was, travel and immediate protection for the populace could not be guaranteed by a standing army, which was hauling ass if they could foot march 30 miles in a day. Even today, we have cops all over the place, but my home has been broken into multiple times (luckily I wasn't home), and not ONCE did my personal cop/soldier body guard stop it. Why...b/c she isn't my personal security guard and wasn't there. While people don't want to accept it, there is no guaranteed safety that society or the government can offer - it really is up to the individual to ultimately be responsible for their own safety and protection of life. I think you will agree that ability is severely limited if all I have is a knife, muzzle loader, or bolt action hunting rifle. And while a 6 shot revolver doesn't put out as much lead as a 10 round magazine pistol, it can still do some serious damage, and via speed loaders be almost as effective (maybe more so if you consider firepower of ( 6 ) .357 rounds compared to a clip of (14) 9mm. But the fact is gun control advocates want all pistols gone, so I wouldn't even have that...and if I did, a criminal can get a semi-auto pistol from Mexico in .45 caliber, and probably out gun me.

Finally, offense wasn't taken for offering an opinion...it was taken at the insulting remarks about being a hypocrite and redneck. that was indirectly directed toward me, although I think it was probably inadvertently done. I have just seen too much name calling on here, and as critical thinking atheist, I always confront people on resorting to that tactic. We are much better intellectually than to stoop to "christian" tactics IMO.

2

In every example laws and restrictions were put in place. The same has been applied to guns....

1

There are plenty of laws that make killing illegal.
That won't stop a crazy from killing large numbers
If guns weren't there they will find another way to carry out their frustration with their life.
This is a sick society that we all have created and making more laws will not help. It's too hard to admit that every aspect of this society is to blame.
Everyone says it's someone else's fault if we make this law it will slow it down. It won't for long.
America owes its system to perpetual war and killing. Sad but true.

No other country in the developed world has this issue, all those countries have guns, they also have sensible gun control laws, so actually more laws will help, we have the evidence, gun control works end of storey

@TiernanMcCann It lessens but doesn't stop it those society's are also different than American society in many other ways. That is something that is ignored. That is were the answer lies.
It's too hard for Americans to deal with.

@TiernanMcCann boo yah. And that’s all she wrote. Or he☺️

When there was a ban on assault rifles this shit was not happening. Look at other countries. Australia is a lot more of a macho country than we are and they handled it. There is no rational argument for not having more restrictive gun laws. Anyone who thinks there is, is a complete fool of the highest order.

Ok then, let's at least make it harder for these demented asshats. Can they kill 20 children and 6 adults with a knife and a baseball bat at a school in Connecticut? Can they kill and wound over 800 people at a concert in Las Vegas with a bow and arrows? Let's at least make them work for their infamy and body count.

@kmdskit3 There should be extensive background checks done at very least

4

Just proves prayers do not work so there must not be anyone upstairs listening.

4

Because guns are meant to kill, and a lot of very frightened people can not acquire enough of them. They organized, funded propaganda, and harvested single-issue (god, gays & guns ) voters -- eventually empowering Republicans to protect their unnecessary stockpiling of military grade weapons and ammunition to perhaps the point of no return..

Varn Level 8 Nov 9, 2018
5

Money. That's why it is the way it is.

Best answer I have read our of hte half dozen or so here when I read them.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:219142
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.