A Moment of Silence for A Moment of Silence.

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
A Moment of Silence for A Moment of Silence.

Finally House Dems and Senate Dems have exposed the absolute failure of "A moment of silence." It is a distraction and that is all it is. The House and Senate in the wake of mass shootings would have "a moment of silence" for the victims and not do a damned thing. The moment of silence didn't do a damn thing. My mistake it did and does, it's a DISTRACTION FROM REALITY!
People always ask what harm could prayer do? Well here's your answer. It placates the ignorant into doing NOTHING.
Oh someone is deathly ill, let's have a prayer instead of treating them with the best medical science available....BUZZZZZZ....DEATH Happens 100% of the time.
Oh a bunch of people are murdered, let's have a moment of silence for the victims instead of finding ways to prevent more victims in the future....BUZZZZZ more victims get murdered 100% of the time.
So let's all have a moment of silence for the moment of silence because hopefully people will finally understand that PRAYER is not only useless but actually destructive because it is a distraction and prevents actions to be taken to actually solve problems!!!!!

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Sir Random's picture
Amen! Or whatever our

Amen! Or whatever our equivelent is. Please, tell me what it is.

mykcob4's picture
Here here!!! is the

Here here!!! is the equivelent.

ZeffD's picture
If only the gun lobby could

If only the gun lobby could hear itself from here (in the UK)....
I know what they say, but it sounds like: "I have a right to fit a flamethrower or gun to a drone or anything I like. It is protected by the wording of the 2nd Amendment, originally written in 1775. This argument is irrefutable and ANY compromise will be seen by me as the thin end of a wedge".

mykcob4's picture
The gun lobby misleads the

The gun lobby misleads the 2nd Amendment. There is no guarantee to own any type of firearm and use that firearm any way you want.

"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."

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a defense militia because the Constitution made no provision for a standing Army, and that is the only reason.

Sir Random's picture
You've picked up and shown us

You've picked up and shown us something that most people miss or misinterpret. Thank you.

chimp3's picture
I disagree that the original

I disagree that the original intent was only to maintain a defensive militia. The letters and speeches of the writers and dreamers of the 2nd Amendment are plentiful and available. The intent was to maintain the ultimate deterrent against governmental tyranny which is an armed populace. If we are to have a discussion about guns in the 21st century then it needs to be made and the 2nd amendment modified not misinterpreted. I am not a member of the NRA , nor do I own any advanced weaponry. I did however have a discussion with one of the founders of the Black Panthers back in 1978 that convinced me of the value of an armed population.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

mykcob4's picture
The purpose of the 2nd

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was NOT to arm the population against it's own government as you say even though Thomas Jefferson saw it that way. It was because there was no provision for a standing army. Read the second amendment again.

"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"

Nowhere does it say it is to protect against it's own government. Instead it talks about a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" necessary for a "FREE STATE". A state in this case meaning the whole of the United States as a nation and a state is the same thing. Not meaning any state such as Texas can take up arms against the United states. The states, such as Georgia was considered a colony even though they were first called "states." This definition was contested in the Civil War and the idea that "states" were independent of the Union was defeated.
This nation is ONE state, a Union, and therefore the right to bear arms is a right to protect that UNION against foreign invasion, and the security of that union, and for no other purpose. Jefferson's interpretation was a selfish one and defeated by Madison, Adams, John Jay, and Hamilton, as illustrated in the Federalist papers.


The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 29


Hamilton address criticisms of the constitution’s provisions for federal control of the militia. Specifically, the constitution empowers the union “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.” Hamilton defends this provision by stating that it will reduce the need for large standing armies, which were widely viewed as a threat to liberty.

He furthermore rejects the criticism that the authors of the constitution intended to create a system in which military force would be the primary instrument for enforcing legislation. The critics based their claim on the fact that the constitution lacks any provision for magistrates employing the use of the posse comitatus, which is the authority of a magistrate to enlist the services of able-bodied men to assist him in enforcing the law. Essentially, the critics are claiming that by not specifically authorizing posse comitatus, the constitution is setting up a system under which the government would have to resort to military forces to execute its duties rather than relying the citizens themselves. However, Hamilton points out that the authority granted to congress to “pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers” would include the authority to require citizens to help officers enforce the law.

This is explained in Federalist Papers #29.

I also suspect that the quotes that you posted are misquotes and propaganda from sources in league or directly from the NRA. I am not accusing you of doing so, but there is a vast amount of misleading quotes circulating and have no basis in fact. When debating the 2nd Amendment I always use the Federalist Papers as my guide.

mykcob4's picture
So the cowardice republicans

So the cowardice republicans just created a whole new day, rammed some legislation that will get vetoed (not allowing Democratic representatives to vote) and adjourned until after the Independence Day break about two weeks. What cowards, what criminals, what disgusting pathetic NRA bought and paid for morons!

Sir Random's picture
Indeed. Let's get the lawsuit

Indeed. Let's get the lawsuit started.

ZeffD's picture
An armed population is only

An armed population is only necessary against an mercenaries hired by a government and the absence of a standing army. The idea that the US government (or many other western governments) could and would use their armies against unarmed citizens is fanciful nowadays. The current US gun-death-rate can't possibly be worth this idle theory of the necessity of an armed populace. (I agree that was in the minds of people in 1790 and much later). Even in Egypt the Army couldn't suppress a popular uprising. It took El-Sisi and widespread popular support as well as wholesale disillusionment with Morsi before it could be used to suppress trouble. An armed populous could only have made matters far worse. Even if one supposes such a militia has some modern purpose, it still doesn't excuse poorly regulated ownership of firearms or ammunition.


charvakheresy's picture
Australia seemed to have

Australia seemed to have benefitted greatly from its gun control....

Nyarlathotep's picture
The people who scream for the

The people who scream for the 2nd amendment to be interpreted literally, typically don't want the rest of the document to be interpreted literally. For openers; consider what would happen if the commerce clause and 10th amendment were interpreted literally.

ZeffD's picture
Good point, N, but a literal

Good point, N, but a literal interpretation doesn't specify that guns can be kept in home or car in the 21st century. Nor does it specify that the mentally ill or the unstable can own guns or even have any legal access to them. It doesn't support the lack of regulation that exists today. Nor does it impede the rights of modern people to regulate ownership of both gun and ammunition. What some people seem to consider the literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not literal at all, or so it seems to me.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.