I know we're all different thinkers, but I'm just curious if there is a consensus view among atheists regarding firearms?

Views: 318

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Louis, when you say that the 2nd amendment isn't incorporated, did you mean it was not ratified by every state? This is news to me, if true.  I thought that the entire constitution had been ratified by all the states that then existed.  Please educate me on this.

On the intent of the writers, I think it is pretty clear that one reason, in addition to defending against invasion,  that the citizenry should be armed, was so we could rise up and overthrow the government if it were to become tyrannical.  When our petitions to the government for redress of grievances are met with inaction or  retaliation, for example.  Like when peaceful protesters are attacked or arrested, or when they are herded into what I call "free speech cages"  made of highway barricades.  That, by the way is what Tampa is planning to do to the protesters who attend the RNC convention.  That is what the police in D.C set up for the counter demonstrators at the Reason Rally.   

Free speech cages... yep,  that's the only kind of free speech we know in Canada. And even those aren't 100% safe.

I believe strongly in everyone having the right to own firearms. I think they should be handed out with every new savings account that is opened.
i got nothing against firearms, but aside from hunting purposes i oppose lethal ammunition
I'm with you.
Sure, have guns, as long as you only have them to hurt and kill unarmed, defenseless fellow earthlings who have done you no harm. As long as you only intend to kill innocent animals. But to use one on a threatening, armed, violent, brutal human - Oh, NO! That's a sin! What a bunch of bullies!
Who has been saying that?
People have the right to own guns, and thats just peachy keen. But I don't think the second amendment gives, nor should it, the right to carry your guns around with you in public. Hunting, home defense, and shooting at designated areas is all fine, but the last thing we need is a bunch of morons running around with their rifles in busy public areas (not calling all gun owners morons, but there are morons who own guns). Guns are dangerous and shouldn't just be carried around willy nilly, and don't give me that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crap: People with guns kill people.
Statistically, places that have strict gun laws have higher crime. Don't take away my right to protect myself. The police cannot always be around. If you don't like guns, don't carry one. However, I do believe that gun owners that carry should be required to take a class yearly to brush up on laws, handle, clean and shoot properly as well. Much like the class you take for conceal carry. It doesn't hurt to brush up and be reminded of the huge responsibility gun owners carry along with their weapons. And required reading should be In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob.
I totally agree about the class requirement but then you fall into the "shall not be infringed" language and things get messy fast. In CA there was a huge shit fit about two week waiting period and another about registration.
Good point!
Statistically, places that have strict gun laws have higher crime.

Are these places more populated, or higher crime areas to begin with? Just curious.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service