There's a famous saying that, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

 

I can't recall the originator - but with recent events in America - and the resulting pathetic rhetoric about political behavior, ignoring the smoking gun/elephant in the room - can America ever shed its historical feudal right to bear arms? Does anyone else think its about time it did?

 

There really is no need for a civilian to bear arms in the modern USA and despite all the laws - and the impenetrably powerful gun loonie lobby - isn't it about time American politicians grew spines and decided that this really is enough.

 

A little girl, born on 9/11/2001 lost her most basic and precious right, life itself because another man had the right to carry a gun. Americans you have Megan's law - how about a law to remember this little girl and abandon your primitive right to hold a tool which serves no purpose than to take life.

 

I note the the people most pro guns are also the most right-wing, pro-Life and pro-God - and if that doesn't prove what an anachronism this law is, I don't know what does.

Tags: gifford, guns, murder, politics

Views: 49

Replies to This Discussion

You and others keep referring to this debate as a right to carry a gun vs the right of society to be safe.

The fundies like to call our rights "God Given". But I prefer "Born Rights". Either way, as human beings we are "endowed by our creator" with rights, one of which is to own objects and/or engage in activities that might be fatal.
We are also so "endowed" with an obligation to be responsible for our actions or inactions.
Again, I refuse to worship your god the state. And on a forum such as this I'm shocked and amazed that so many of you get away with this state-as-god worship with nary so much as a peep from your peers!

All the state (government) is, is force. It uses the threat of violence to attempt to accomplish those things its proponents think are worth accomplishing.

Heh, dude, it's any atheist group.  Our small number of conservatives tend to become Libertarians, since social conservatism and atheism don't particularly mix.

 

Supposedly there are some atheist Republicans out there somewhere, but I've never met one.

If you're expecting that sort of political uniformity amongst a group of people who rebel from an authoritarian religious structure ... well, I don't know what to tell you.  Heck, even the Christian churches can't keep their members in line.  You just mentioned liberal Christians.  If the major denominations had their way, there would be no such thing.

Ok, i get all this, but seriously.... take away the right, start a new black market(or make it worse) and have people going to prison for it. People hunt animals, go target practicing. If a person wants to own a gun, strict(and I mean strict) regulations need to be put in to place, if someone wants to kill some one they will find a way to do it. Remember guns do not kill people, people kill people. I have an idea lets make a law where no one person can have shoe laces, belts, fishing line, kitchen knives,gasoline, or cars.

 

 I am not a right-wing-nut nor a looney-lefty I am a realist (I like to think so at least) nor do i believe in any god(s) and have a great respect for human life. I think any one who can not look at the reality of such topics should just EDUCATE them selves a bit more. If 1 person wants to own a gun and call him/her self a millitia, let them, the moment they kill someone with that said gun(s) take them away and their gun(s). Prosecute them to the full extent of the law and judged by a jury of their peers.

Right there with you, on the gasoline.
well I'm glad some one is...lol

I'm sure the murder victim will feel much better.

 

Some friends and I are going deer hunting in Manitoba this fall.  Want to go?  You have to leave your guns home, though; my friends and I hunt with belts, shoe laces, fishing line, and gasoline.  We try not to use the car on them, though.  Isn't sporting.

I agree, Joshua.
Also you sed:
"I have an idea lets make a law where no one person can have shoe laces, belts, fishing line, kitchen knives,gasoline, or cars."

There is a law already. It's called prison. I don't want to live in even a minimum security prison where some "boss" says what I can and cannot possess, or what I can or cannot do to my body.

Also, you mentioned prosecution of gun toters who kill...I agree and would extend this to intoxicated people who use vehicles to kill, maim, or cause property damage. They too should be held to account, but intoxicated people who are driving should NOT be prosecuted just for being high.
> It is literally and logistically highly improbable that the government could >physically collect them all from us.

They needn't go door-to-door.
It will be accomplished via incrementalism. The same way your side will nationalize the health care industry. The same way your side has banned smoking. You don't think they could have just come along and banned cigarette smoking from all public places in one motion, do you? It started with moving smokers to the back of the bus, then the back of the airplanes, then in special smoking areas inside airports...

You're probably too young to have first hand knowledge of the above, but surely you remember Katrina? The police went door-to-door collecting people's guns! Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taU9d26wT4

Those law abiding citizens didn't understand what the 2nd Amendment was created for and meekly gave up their protection to a gang of thugs who had the drop on them.
There will be no riots when the police come to collect our guns. Most of us will give them up freely because we'll believe we have to. Those few who protest will be killed for resisting and the rest will be cowed.

>Too many want more than they really need.

Well that says it all doesn't it.
I guess you imagine you'll be a part of the group who decides what we peons "really need."
The first things government will decide you don't need is your computer.
"Making a leap from cigarettes to guns is ridiculous."

There was no "leap." I explained that incrementalism is the method politicians use to pass unconstitutional or unpopular laws. I mentioned the way tobacco users have been disenfranchised. I guess you missed that.

"Making a leap from a natural disaster like Katrina, which involved marshal law because basic infrastructure had broken down, to normal functioning society is even more ridiculous."

Oh. So you're saying that if government declares Martial Law, then everything they do during that time is OK? And just so you know, Martial Law wasn't declared in America after Katrina. The local sheriff is not a military authority and cannot legally curtail any right.

Where most people will raise an objection is the subjects themselves.  I don't care about the fact that smokers have been disenfranchised and have lost their ability to smoke wherever they like.  They can do whatever they want in their own home, but if they do it in public, particularly in an enclosed space, then it affects me.

 

And yes, a huge number of things were all @#$%^& up during Katrina.  I don't think you'll find many people saying otherwise.

Huh? What side is yours?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service