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

Views: 3085

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I always wonder about people who feel they need a gun to protect life and limb, in case of a home invasion, for example. If that is the real reason they need a gun, do they also have a home defibrillator? I ask because someone having a heart attack in the home is a far more likely event than a home invasion.

Wouldn't that depend on your location and health? Where I live, and with my good health, I'm much more likely to experience a home invasion. If I had a heart condition I might invest in a home defibrilator, just as I would have an EpiPen on hand if I had severe allergies.

No, one can not plan for every scenario, but using the whole country (or world) to come up with odds doesn't work either.

Why do you assume a defribrillator would only be useful based on your own health? You might have a guest or visitor who has a heart attack. One has a first aid kit primarily for oneself, I suppose, but also to handle any situations that happen in or near the home whether or not they benefit just oneself.

I haven't assumed anything. I'm speaking of my entire family. Any one of us is more likely to be intruded upon (where we live) than have a heart attack. And if anyone comes to my house they can bring their own defibrilator if they have a heart condition. :)

Like i said, we can't plan for everything, but if I move to Florida I'm not going to say I don't need hurricaine insurance because the people in Canada aren't likely to get hit by one.

Oh, are home invasions fairly common now where you live. Tell me where that is so I can avoid living there.

Defibrillators are boring, though. :-(

Matt, no one tells the difference at a gun shop between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal.

You tell the difference when a criminal breaks into or otherwise gains entry to your home.


If you came from a gun ownership family then you can ignore my plea for you to receive some sound firearms training with your weapon(s) of choice.

I think it was really meant to easily equip a militia army. Back then it was usual to have a small standing army and then quickly increase it with conscription. Anything else was too expensive for most countries. Having people armed meant that there were already trained in shooting and that they owned some of their own equipment. At that time, the best weapon was also a rifled musket. Not automatic rifles.

Having some restrictions on guns isn't a bad thing. That doesn't mean banning them outright or making them to hard to get. There is a healthy middle ground somewhere

In the context of time which that amendment was written, I think it safe to say that all persons had a right to own a firearm. For me the question has always been, at what point the government should restrain ownership of certain types of weapons. For example, should an individual be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, or what caliber of weapon, etc.

For example, should an individual be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, or what caliber of weapon, etc.

To me it is irrelevant if your law-abiding. A semi-automatic firearm in the hands of a competent knowledgeable gun owner can make it perform "automatic."

     Guns are great and I think anyone (sans convicted felons/etc) should have the right to own one if they wish. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves...911 isn't always an option.

I don't own a gun, but like the idea of purchasing one at some point.



Blog Posts

My Purity Ring

Posted by Michelle Varni on July 5, 2015 at 7:18pm 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service