Posts by Jonathan Drake

3

Stuart Anderson Nobel Peace prize

by poopie in

jw
friends

yes

Jonathan Drake

Are you referring to Angus Stewart by chance? The counsel for the Royal comission. (I may have misspelled is last name)

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

I'm glad we agree. Islam is a terrible religion and needs ridiculed and reasoned with. Apologists and Muslims that claim to be peaceful need shown that their faith is unreliable and that the religion is responsible for all interpretations of its book both good and bad.

This is not racism, or islamaphobia. It's just true.

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

Jonathan Drake

The shooting at the abortion clinic was an act of terrorism, for christian ideas. This nonsense needs to be worked out of our society as does ideas of any other religion that basis its belief on outdated ideas of hatred and murder.

SLOW CLAP

And for those posting about Islam as a race - it is not. It is absolutely not a race. It is a religion made up of many different races all around the world just like Christianity.

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

Jonathan Drake

I agree with every point Simon just made.

And he brings up the NRA, which is a great point. I've rarely noticed a time when anyone on "anti-gun law" side wasn't jumping straight to the extreme and fighting a gun ban. I don't think anyone is actually advocating a complete ban on all fire arms.

I like what Bernie Sanders has been saying about gun laws, he doesn't support a ban, just wonders why in the world anyone needs and assault rifle and why a loophole exists for gun shows - and these are wonderful points.

The NRA gets people all worked up about the second amendment and, "you can't take or guns!" But nobody wants to take your guns, what they want is to make ONLY assault weapons and such guns as only exist for killing human beings illegal. That's what is needed and wanted.

34

Hypothetical question. There is no more guns on our streets, would the crime rate go down?

by James Mixon in

jw
friends

it would eliminate drive by's (gangs).

bank robbery.

( handing the bank teller a note, this is stick up without a gun).

Jonathan Drake

Making guns illegal would not take them off the streets.

Crime would not go down.

gun related crime would go down.

CRIME would not.

gun related crime would not END, but go down.

what would disappear is mass shooting sprees. Not gun crime, not crime itself. And that's good enough.

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake:
"We definitely need better gun laws."
California, where the recent shootings took place, has stringent gun laws. Even semi-autos with a fixed non-detachable 10 round magazine capacity are prohibited.

This is a good point, the only rebuttal I can think of to apply is:

More strict gun laws do nothing if a person can just cross a state line and get what they want and go home. What we need is a nationwide standard.

After any future change to the nations laws on guns, the immediate effect will likely be nothing. What I said in my previous post would apply here as well, which is that many people already have guns that are now disallowed and how do you take these away? There's no way to do this.

what will have to be done is trust the ones that already have them until said trust is broken and then take every gun they own, while making it impossible to obtain outlawed guns without resorting to extremely expensive means that undermine the time and effort put into getting them.

the prohibition wouldn't be an example that fits in this scenario because not ALL guns need outlawed.

many would oppose outlawing any gun at all, and to that opposition I always point out that their inevitable argument, that we need to be able to rise up against the government, doesn't work because drones and tanks. No assault rifle is going to help fight drones and tanks or a navy blowing up Rebels from the sea.

Hence I say, take away the guns that literally are only for killing other human beings, keep hunting rifles and pistols - no automatics or extended rounds, no guns allowed to be sold at gun shows ever, no guns for any person born in another country regardless of citizenship, no guns for anyone who hasn't graduated highschcol, no guns for anyone who's ever been drug or alcohol dependent, no guns for anyone who's ever been diagnosed with any mental issue - and I'm sure I could add on to this list.

i would also add that any person who is part of any religion, should be classified as a person suffering a mental delusion IMO. But that's just my opinion and will probably never be realized.

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

Jonathan Drake

I believe what they need is better laws not out right bans.

in America we once had prohibition, a period of time where alcohol was banned. It's what led to the rise of the mob and organized crime.

if you ban guns it's only going to create an atmosphere where that can happen again IMO. The crimes being committed by people with guns are systemic of other issues in society - not the availability of guns.

take this latest issue. What ultimately caused this shooting? It wasn't the gun, it was the ludicrous religion that for some reason is tolerated and protected in society that did this.

The questions being asked are all wrong. It's not why aren't we banning guns, it's why aren't we dealing with religions that are divisive? Why aren't we doing better to provide jobs and fight unemployment and poverty?

We definitely need better gun laws. But these shootings are not happening because people can get guns.

238

Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.

by James Mixon in

san bernardino california.

up to 12 people have been killed.. the center a private non-profit agency that assists people with developmental.

disabilities.

Jonathan Drake

cappytan, that's the same thing that is said every time something like this happens. Ban forks, ban cars. Why not bring something constructive to the discussion? If it were up to you, nothing would ever be done about it?

Cap is right tho. I don't like that he is right anymore than you. I wish guns could be made illegal but that's just not realistic.

think it through. They outlaw guns, now how do they round them up? My uncle once said he'd just bury them someplace for when he needed them. How could they ever get them all? The government I mean.

you know they can't.

72

CEDARS (Again) Is it really about religious beliefs?

by Listener in

jw
friends

john cedars has posted his latest blog "the trouble with apostates (and why it shouldn't put you off becoming one)".

i acknowledge that he is entitled to his opionin just as we are ours but i am disappointed in some of his comments.. at this stage i'll try to be objective about it.

he is defending his own position after all.. what bothers me most is his comments about athiests and christians which he seems to identify as being in conflict with each other.

Jonathan Drake

I'm probably going to be absolutely reamed for this

Surely not cap, for shame! This is a support community for current and former Jehovah's witnesses. How could you possibly think you'd be reamed?

29

Impact of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on JW policies and procedures

by steve2 in

the royal commission is not yet over.

the summary of findings on jws is not the end of the story.

the legal process is unfolding and the only open question is the extent to which jw organization in australia will be legally mandated to change its policies and procedures on child sexual abuse.. (on the question of shunning those who leave, the commission is well intended but has strayed beyond its legal brief.

Jonathan Drake

Personally I feel the best case scenario we should aim for, for the moment, is the negative PR.

make sure as many JWs as possible see what's happening and know how terrible this organization has been and continues to be in their treatment of this inquiry.

Beyond that, I feel there is a danger in putting to much hope or stock in any outcome. If the exJW community starts hyping about the outcome and the real authority steps in and guts the recommendations or completely acquits the organization - then not only will the Watchtower flout this as a victory, not only will active JWs throw it in your face, but freshly questioning JWs may shut down all doubt because God has "clearly helped his people."

As much as I hope for Watchtower to get shredded, I think focusing on the moment, and showing all these terrible things they've said on camera and in writing is the best thin we can do. This way regardless of the outcome, it doesn't change the horrendous things they've said and the outright lies every witness will be able to clearly see.

I by no means intend to deflate your topic at all, I just felt I wanted to say this regarding the endgame. Watchtower may by all means get off completely free and change absolutely nothing.