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

Views: 320

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

you know that the national guard answers to the governor of the state/commonwealth, not the president of the united states (wasn't clear if you knew that, its a common mistake)

I'm going to go out on a limb here since this hasn't happened to my knowledge outside of wartime. But wouldn't all the President would have to do is declare a national state of emergency and activate the National Guard under his/her command shortly thereafter?

No, he has no jurisdiction over them whatsoever unless it is specifically granted to him by the governor.  The right to keep a militia is what helps protect state sovereignty.  Thats why I am ARMY Reserve, my "state's" budget is fucked constantly, so I'd  rather get my paycheck from the big guy.  plus the missions are cooler.

 

put simply, Obama got nuthin' on the national guard.

Cherry-picking one phrase out of a lengthy sentence is unreasonable.  The founding fathers didn't want a standing professional army of the type that had been tools for tyrants in Europe for centuries.  A "well regulated militia" is a citizen army, yes, but it's also an arm of the government, to be called upon in times of need so we wouldn't need mercenaries.  Even in the Revolution, though, the militia was ineffective.  That war was won by a paid professional army.  Today, a citizen army, with each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon (hence the need to keep arms), is an anachronism, totally impractical, and that role has been relegated to the National Guard since the 1930s.  The militia was considered "necessary to the security of a free state," i.e., it was to protect our country from foreign invaders, to keep our country secure, so we wouldn't need the mercenaries and soldiers kidnapped into service that powerful nations like Britain had deployed all over the world.  Without an army, the state isn't secure; with a standing army loyal to a king or president, it isn't free.  A well regulated militia, a force that trained regularly and obeyed officers (often elected), was supposed to solve that problem--but that was long before jets and nukes and flame throwers and smart bombs and drones.  An F-16 costs thousands of dollars an hour to operate and requires constant practice to master, and one non-nuclear Stinger runs in excess of $30,000.  As well armed as the government?  Yeah, right. 

Cherry-picking comes naturally to people who wave bibles.

Don't you mean cruise missiles in the place of stingers? lol

Today, a citizen army, with each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon (hence the need to keep arms), is an anachronism, totally impractical, and that role has been relegated to the National Guard since the 1930s.

Doesn't Switzerland manage this approach (at least the each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon) quite successfully?

The existence of powerful new weapons (jets missiles etc) doesn't nullify the deterrent that an armed citizenry presents to those who would like to subjugate them. Consider the existence of guerrilla warfare. A town or city is of limited use to an invader if it has to be bombed flat to secure dominance.

In reference to the Swiss, yeah, they have mandatory enlistment in their military, which is why every of age male has a weapon in their home.  As far as its practical uses (bearing arms), it can go either way.  In the event of an invasion, yeah, it would be helpful~ but who is going to invade?  intercontinental invasions are impractical (see 'revolutionary war' and 'invasion of Iraq') and have so far ended in disaster if the occupied possess a similar quality of arms.  That would have to be counterbalanced with the notion that, absent an invader, you have a lot of armed people in general, which can escalate a situation to violence given certain circumstances.  I know I fear much less an invasion than an armed, ideological citizenry who take it upon themselves to "reclaim america."

 

I'm for firearm education, not a blanket ban or blanket endorsement.  I own 4 firearms, and appreciate being able to~ but then again, I know I'm a reasonable person, and that, in this country, doesn't seem to be the norm.

In the event of an invasion, yeah, it would be helpful~ but who is going to invade?
Despite it usually not turning out well, invasions do happen now and then. The existence of an armed and trained citizenry in Switzerland was named in Nazi records as one of the factors contributing to the decision not to invade (Source: Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II).
I always hate having to find myself arguing this point, but he's right. If you take the language apart, the 2nd Amendment says that the right to bear arms is a precondition for the militia; because a militia is necessary so is the right to bear arms.

Not that it matters because the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated and so the states have more or less final say on who gets to own what in the gun department.
Not that it matters because the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated and so the states have more or less final say on who gets to own what in the gun department.
A true statement and the reason why gun issues rarely get to the SCOTUS The ruling on the DC gun ban was limited to ONLY Washington DC where the dysfunctional city government and federal government live together in their own little fishbowl of chaos.
I also hate (and generally refuse) to engage with the extremes on either side of the issue - it's as bad as dealing with a fundamentalist.
A sensible balance can be found between the right to own and use firearms with reasonable regulation, and unreasonable unrestricted ownership without prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a "right" , but all rights have attendant responsibilities. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training, licensing and who are mentally stable. Also, the firearm should have a legitimate civilian use or collector value
Further, the responsibility also lies with the manufacturers and dealers to prevent gun trafficking into other countries (specifically the Mexican drug cartels) by using straw purchases to obtain large number of guns . Guns that also go into an unrestrained black market, predominately providing criminal elements.
There is, I believe, a balance that would satisfy all but the fringe – but that fringe has some large money with an interest in making and selling lots of guns.
I like this

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Bertold Brautigan replied to Bertold Brautigan's discussion Raëlian DNA research project: Science proves that consecrated wafers are still wheat and not Jesus
2 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to sk8eycat's discussion California Seems to Be Learning Something in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
6 minutes ago
Joan Denoo liked sk8eycat's discussion California Seems to Be Learning Something
7 minutes ago
matthew greenberg replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
11 minutes ago
sk8eycat replied to Bertold Brautigan's discussion Raëlian DNA research project: Science proves that consecrated wafers are still wheat and not Jesus
15 minutes ago
Gwaithmir replied to Bertold Brautigan's discussion Raëlian DNA research project: Science proves that consecrated wafers are still wheat and not Jesus
20 minutes ago
sk8eycat replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
23 minutes ago
matthew greenberg replied to James M. Martin's discussion Clown Show Coming: Why the Republitards Will Lose in 2016 Unless They Wise Up and Pick a Charismatic Candidate
27 minutes ago
Daniel W (Sentient Biped) replied to Daniel W (Sentient Biped)'s discussion Upscale Sodomites Spread Ebola @ Starbucks!
29 minutes ago
sk8eycat added a discussion to the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
35 minutes ago
Raquel Fernando replied to James M. Martin's discussion Godless Millenials May Chart the Course for Ending Far Right Religiousity
39 minutes ago
Daniel W (Sentient Biped) commented on Claire Donnelly's group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
43 minutes ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service