Atheists are a small minority in the U.S. Advocates of gun control might be a minority in America as well. In light of the recent shootings in Aurora I am curious as to how atheists in this network view the lack of gun restrictions. There are probably divergent views.
I have trouble believing that both presidential candidates are steering away from any call for reform after the horrific mass shooting. In my opinion it is insane to allow citizens access to assault weapons that can kill scores of people in a few minutes. It was even more shocking to hear on a news show that a family had to raise money to pay for the immense hospital bills for one of the victims while they were already crippled with medical bills from the mothers fight with breast cancer.
As a Canadian I came to stand with my U.S brothers for the reason rally and freedom from religion. I would be willing to come down to the capitol and march for two other important causes. Gun control and universal health care.
I have no political party affiliation.
Having said that why was Hillary Clinton a terrible Persidential candidate -
Stupid enough to think toppling Kadaffi was a good idea - Obama was dumb enough to go for tha ignorant short sighted idea as welll.
Obvious to even me with a pea brain - what did that do open the cash of weapon supplies to the vacuum which is ISSIS.
In sarcasm the ignorance of all of that and growth of ISIS may not have been planned - the problem as I see it is the ignormouses are too busy playing pool, of golf with each other and likely nutting up to campaign dollars than doing what we think they should be 'paid ' to do.
Who's sorry as a citicen my taxdollars aren't paying my congressional representitives the industrial military complex lobyists are shooing their feet.
Wonder wy there is so much violence? Take time to look at that.
Chris, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton for two reasons.
1. She supported her husband on NAFTA and many other issues that I did not support;
2. She was a warmonger, seeking solutions using violent means when other means were available.
3. I'll add a third reason, she was a poor example for women in an era when we work so hard to end family violence. Her choices were her business and none of mine, however, she offered a disgusting model for being a woman.
I agree with what you are saying and would add her support for the Iraq and Lyban war make her a terrible candidate.
NAFTA is another problem.
Wonder why Mexicans, Central Amerricans are imigrating?
It's pretty simple. Nafta broke the back of Mexican Farmers such that thaey couldn't compete with the subsidies provided by farm subsidies provided by the U.S. move into look at as you know why centeral america is so discheveled and look at what happened to the corporation that controlled the agriguual industry there . It seems even worse now tith the mining industry,.
Sorry for complaining and exposusing. I have more to say.
Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate for the democratic party.
There was other stuff she was doing with renditions as Secretary of State.
Sorry to complain the Prime Minister of Canada is also a POS.
Not only what he's doing with the tarsands, which is horrible, but also in centeral america.
I don't think the egotist prime minister of Canada is working for the benifit of the Canadian people.
May be wrong - seems to be for his own ego.
May be wrong because the POTUS is such an egotist.
More than likely its because corporate news media is mostly about speculaton.
The corruption lies in corportisism. People don't like it when I say, or wrrite that a corporaton is inherrently a socoiopath.
I agree most of all with you that she was a war monger - short sighted without basic understanding of the reprocusions of her actions.
I agree. Many Americans are violent and we elect them, so America is violent.
Our perpetual wars are evidence.
It's called "survival of the fittest". But we are not the "aggressors". We won Cuba, and the Philippines during the Spanish/American war. We released them. Russia is still capturing land. Crimea is their latest acquisition last year.
I agrue it isn't survival of the fittist in the darwinian sense unless someone thinks there is inbread power with royalty.
A lot of people do. Fortunately the French Revolution cured some of that - More to go to stop tyriny.
I do mean in the Darwinian sense. During our past history, we learned that two working against one would have a positive outcome for the two. Teamwork is better than working alone. Survival of the fittest includes a gain in intelligence. We learned to work as a team, and won over our enemies. Tribes, and then countries evolved.
Not two, Multiplicipy helps the specie often outside of tribalism.