Be sure to vote, I am curious where most atheists stand on this issue.

Views: 3109

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oppression does exist in almost every society on this planet and we have our fair share. When the shit hits the fan in a very bad way I do want to retain my collection of firearms. They could be instrumental in one's survival in a world turned upside down. Rocks, slingshots, and spears won't past the effectiveness mustard.

Judith, you recognize a few realities that many people don't but the oppression began earlier than you say.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others at the 1787 Federal Convention provided for oppression by America's wealthy. You can read their words in Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. His three volumes can be found in many large public libraries and the last time I did a search Amazon had them in paperback.

I agree that owning personal firearms will do little to prevent a heavily armed government from becoming a dictatorship and suppressing freedoms.

We here in the US are already under a multitude of laws and regulations defining what we can or can't do.  While many of these regulations are necessary, there are those which are not.  In my opinion the Patriot Act (what a name)  is a law designed to take away any rights the government deems necessary.  Congress passed it in the hysteria which swept the country following 9/11.  It is a law of unintended (maybe not) consequences.  It makes habeas corpus a joke..

I believe there was a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the subject that said something along the lines of "the second amendment won't be necessary until the government tries to take it." Or at least that's what it essentially implied. There's a reason loose gun laws lower crime rates. I'm all for class licenses and such, but registration and bannings are a joke.

What about the right to arm bears?

Yes, I think that should happen. Please make that happen.

I do not own a gun because a travel so much. But once my traveling dies down, I do plan to purchase two handguns. One near my bed and one in my kitchen area because I am in my kitchen most of the time. 

These are points that I agree with.

Why have we let our government legislate us into becoming potential victims? Criminals have guns while law-abiding citizens are left helpless. 

Two:

Any gun control that restricts law-abiding citizens is ridiculous - we're not the people who commit crimes.

Finally, police cannot protect citizens, and even if they could, they do not have an obligation to do so. One must accept responsibility for one's own security.

all agreed. and someone who trains "peace officers" in the states...the ones in my area wont be called. they cant hit the broad side of a barn and will just accidentally shoot my wife, dog, turtle, fish tank.... then sprinkle some crack on all of us and say they stopped a drug deal

Sounds like the problem, in your area, isn't a question of gun-control or -ownership but an issue with a) a poorly motivated/corrupt police force OR b) a big case of anti-police confirmation bias.

neither. i was sarcastically referring to the 20 years of training military and police in firearms. as well as pointing out sophie's last comment about what police officers in the U.S. are obligated to do, to "protect and serve" is not one of them. thats a post riot marketing slogan.

The poor marksmanship of many people who are required to be professionally armed goes to poor motivation, I think, but I get what you're saying.

As I asked Sophie, though - if the police do not have an obligation to protect the citizenry, what ARE they obligated to do?

in short? arrest people for crimes, or detain them if they have reasonable proof they committed one. this should not be confused with protecting you. in all the tv and movies this country has exported have you ever heard the phrase "anything you say can be used AGAINST you in the court of law". it is a literal explanation that nothing you say will be used FOR YOU in a court of law. hence arresting criminals or detaining suspected criminals DOES NOT translate to protecting the individual, any individual... if you decide to do any research, you should conclude that police for the most part here

a) not here to protect any individual citizen (warren v d.c.), and

b)  speaking to the police is of absolute no benefit without retained counsel.

sad as it may sound. sophie is right, you are on your own. if you ever have to defend yourself....in the u.s.....remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service