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

Views: 3521

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Laws that would only have the effect of concentrating firearms in the hands of the people we would most like not to have them.

What concerns me, too, is that guns would be concentrated in the hands of those with money and connections, as luxury items. Right now, it is legal to own certain fully-automatic weapons ("machine guns") and things like suppressors ("silencers"); all that is required is a special tax paid to the ATF for each item, on top of the price of the gun (normally in the tens of thousands) and the obligatory background check. Even if gun control measures are passed, I'd bet that most "banned" items will always be legal in some form to those with enough money. It would be a shame if the general public were priced out of the self-defense market.

I didn't read all the responses, but I think it's a ridiculous and severely outdated amendment. The way I read it is regular Joes should be allowed to carry weapons in case there's a need for a militia to help defend the country. I'm sorry but if ever the state of the world was in such dire straights that the biggest army in the world needed to recruit militia, I think nukes would put the problems to rest long before the draft ever happened.

my 2¢

A lot of people feel the militia are needed against a dictatorial Federal government, not so much to defend the country from outsiders. This may seems ridiculous, but our Founding Fathers felt that periodic revolutions would be necessary to preserve the liberty of the populace, so that interpretation is very defensible.

the 2nd amendment has less to do with your hunting rights,and more with your self defense rights. And no offense, but this common idea I hear from hunters and sports shooters about how we should ban assault rifles, but keep our hunting rifles is a selfish one, more rights should enjoyed by law abiding citizens not less.

Technically, it has to do with the national defense. The founding fathers were obviously concerned that the British might return. 

...more rights should enjoyed by law abiding citizens not less.

Okay, why then shouldn't "law abiding citizens" be allowed to possess guns? You seem to define someone who has a gun or wants one as ipso facto not law abiding. 

Originally it had nothing to do with "self defense" rights and everything to do with the defense of the State, state here referring to an actual state and not the nation. Self defense was a later popular interpretation.  Likewise, the notion that the Founders who wrote the Constitution wanted to keep the door open to armed revolution by the population is ridiculous. It was trying to put down Shay's Rebellion in 1786 that they threw out the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, which provided a stronger federal government (well one at all, really) to do things like put down rebellions. It proved it could do that in 1791 with the Whiskey Rebellion.

More importantly as I see it, part of the reason these militias were seen as necessary was because they were used by Southern slave-holding states to put down slave revolts.

Here are some links, in progressive length:

I believe that people should have the right to say, handguns, even rifles and shotguns, but machine guns and shit, there's no reason for a civilian to have that. And of course, I believe in universal background checks, and I don't think you should be able to purchase a firearm if you are on the terrorist watch list.

Just for people's information (perhaps you already know this futilethwinds, but I'll tell anyone else who doesn't know), although machine guns are technically legal in the US you have to go through a raft of paperwork and pay a $200 tax to get one (it's a funny tax that you have to beg the government for permission to pay!).  Some states outlawed them entirely, and it turns out your chief of police has to sign off on the paperwork and can just refuse for any reason at all.  Then, because it's been illegal to make one for that market since 1986, the gun itself will more than likely cost several thousand dollars.

This does not stop the media from showing film of people firing fully automatic weapons while discussing the AR-15, which (though it looks like the full-auto M16 or M4, is only a semi-automatic) just to try to mislead you into thinking the AR-15 is a "machine gun" that needs to be banned.

Here's a bit more info for the anti-gun airheads: the vast majority of murders, robberies, and other gun-related crimes are committed with pistols and shotguns. These two types of weapons will not be banned in our lifetime, if ever. Possibly never.

@ futilethewinds:

What if your name was on the watch list?

Who decides whose name goes on the list?

How do you get your name off the list?

I don't need a gun. So whatever.



What I wrote

Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 4 minutes ago. 4 Replies

What do you think of this?

Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 10 hours ago. 16 Replies


Started by David Boots in Theistic Arguments and Debate Help. Last reply by JadeBlackOlive on Friday. 1 Reply

Blog Posts

Lacerta - the lizard

Posted by Brad Snowder on April 30, 2017 at 1:52am 0 Comments

The First Lie

Posted by Andrew Brown on April 24, 2017 at 12:46pm 11 Comments

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service