I was recently in Alaska doing some work. The crew that I was working with was the stereo-typical conservative god fearing crowd. Something struck me about them. They pack guns. On the job site there were guns. When they went fishing, there were guns (makes some sense since bears are common on the rivers). No matter what they were doing, there were guns. A thought occurred to me. Do atheists carry guns? I have four firearms, but only bought one of them because an uncle needed some bucks. The others were given to me as family gifts. The thought of bringing one never occurred to me. We don't have kids, so I really would have to think about the location of them all and the bullets for them. I just don't have an interest in guns. I'm not afraid of anything, so why would I care? 

So the real question that occurred to me is, do any atheists carry firearms? I do know of one. The largess of those that pack in my life are religionists. What are you afraid of? Why do you pack? If we live in the "greatest country" as Americans, why do you have to pack heat? Once in my 36 years do I recall a use for a weapon, but it may have made the situation much worse. If in most countries people don't feel the need to pack, doesn't that refute the greatest country claim on it's face? 

I have no judgement of those that want to pack. I defend that right as closely as the next. I'm not bothered by it. In the Czech Republic I was in a bar with three pistols on the table because we had just been target practicing. I enjoyed that true freedom that we don't have here. But does a transgression like stealing my wallet warrant death? Short of abuse of my child or wife, I don't know when I would pull the trigger. I'm quite capable of damage to anyone without my wrestling background. So why would I pack? If you are an atheist that packs, why is that, and can you justify it without fear? This is a new thought, so I'd love to hear all positions on it.  

Views: 422

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I can agree with that.

To me owning a gun is matter of tastes. For those that choose to own a gun, education and safety is paramount. I think that those that don't choose to own one should still be trained how to safely disassemble one. People who unfamiliar of them or are afraid of even holding one have been known to cause more accidents/incidents than those that have been taught how to use them properly.

I abstain form easy access to firearms. (gun and ammo in separate locations under lock and key) As it has been pointed out people are more likely to consider it a viable option when they are easy to get to. I have a buddy who owns guns and lives alone. Once someone broke into his house stole some stuff and defecated on his floor. Later, I found out that he keeps a loaded gun under his pillow. He told me that if he had been home he would have shot the guy. Gun owners like that make me nervous. If he had come home while they were there he could have been shot with own gun... I coulda bitch-slapped him.

I think that it's fair to assume that there are a number of people that own a gun just to feel tough or superior. My friend, would fit that profile (IMO). I despise stupid gun owners. Living in a country full of people like him certainly doesn't make me want to own a gun any less.

I advocate disciplined gun ownership and appeal to them as a defense as a last resort. It levels the playing field, as you put it. If I lived in a country where no one had access to them I don't think that I'd really want one... but still, in the cases of people being drug off by their governments I think that it's a viable consideration.
You're full of constructs. And assertions about my conduct. I said from the beginning that I don't carry. And again and again, even brandishing is only warranted in the case of certain threats.

You are continually asking me to answer for gun use in scenarios that YOU are creating where gun use is not suitable...

I'm happy that you don't recommend doing something unsafe in a hypothetical situation that you've tailored. I'm very proud. I'll be sure to take your advice if I'm ever caught in this situation that you're imagining.
No you didn't there was plenty of mining and cherry picking but nothing in the context of YOUR example. And not once did I state a desire of having a gun whilst watching some one getting abducted. And now you've resorted to putting words in my mouth.

You've submitted on your own that people in the US are currently being taken away and held unlawfully.

Fact is Jean, I don't answer to you. Nor should I, or will I. If you wish, you're more than welcome to clarify exemplify what your position even is.

Please, feel free to provide your own opinion. Instead of trying to put everyone else who gives their feedback on the defensive.
Until then...
And die they will. One cannot stand up to the government with weapons and prevail. The idea that the right to bear arms protects us from the government is absurd.
It's all good. I just needed a breather... and sleep. I understand perfectly well why people who dislike guns are against them. The only issue I have with the discussion (other than I still can't wrap my head around why you would take issue with guns collecting dust in my basement)... Is how you went about it.

Trying to get someone to construct reason for a precautionary just so you can invalidate it.
It's a form of straw-man, except you're asking them to construct it for you. Any hypothetical social construct is easy to deconstruct, as they are based off of presuppositions. It would be like asking someone to justify owning a fire extinguisher, generally things catch fire and have been known to do so. But past addressing the general concerns, constructing "detailed" and elaborate situations most likely would come off as over-cautious or paranoid... but this does not invalidate the owning of a fire extinguisher, it merely serves to make the owner of one look foolish... Nor does addressing the fact no one is coming to take me unlawfully out of my home invalidate the concern warranting precaution to that effect.

This is why I refused to give you an example of where I feel I would need a gun. You seem to be under an impression that I'm new to discussion and debate and am incapable explaining my opinions... however, I have nothing to gain in my discourse and I have no agenda socially or politically, so if feel that whomever I'm talking to is being unreceptive I will simply stop talking.

Past that the only offense I take is that this style of debate generally used to defame the opponents character by trying to make them look foolish. (I could site popular examples of were you can watch it on TV, but I won't) I don't believe that is your intention in the slightest. And I can't emphasize that enough.

The government, as of now is not corrupt in a manner that warrants a call to arms or anything, I actually have quite a bit of trust in the government... and humanity for that matter. I have no intent on EVER using a gun on another human being... I also don't intend on my house catching fire.

Honestly, I did write a number of responses to this effect but deleted them in fear of coming off as too mean or abrasive. As I've said to you earlier in IM I wonder what opinions we DO have in common, and I feel that your energy may contribute to a great number of discussions. I quite like you Jean. So if your worried about running my off, don't. I'm not new to this and I'm not going anywhere anytime soon... maybe off this particular topic. (way too drained for any more) But I'll be around in other threads.

I actually would have felt better posting this through IM. But as you have publicized your concern I feel it appropriated to return in kind. (I guess this way people can read back and judge it from both perspectives.)

Neals right. Simply disagreeing is not a bad thing... Neither is taking a nap.

Thanks Sweetie I do appreciate it.
This is a reply to Jean and the above fire-extinguisher analogy. I understand your example and find no flaw of reason to it. But again I must point out that your example does not extend past a general concern.

A rational reason to have fire extinguishers in my home, is, i would be able to use the thing to put a fire, which could indeed occur. I could maybe extinguish a small fire, until that socialist fire dept shows up to make sure all is well.

You will find that if I started asking you about any specific scenario where your home may catch fire we end up talking about details that may never occur and insomuch would be easy to extrapolate paranioa or a lack of reason.

If you, for instance were to tell me that leaving your stove on could cause a fire or that there is faulty wiring in your home that my ignite a fire. Anyone coming from an anti-fire extinguisher position could easily question: "Well why would you leave your stove on to begin with, if your so worried about it just don't ever turn it on and order out. SEE? There ARE alternatives, you know? And why don't you just have the wiring replaced? If you can't afford it, just move to someplace cheaper that has better wiring?"

I submit a qoute from Michel to exemplify:
"I think that it is necessary to have the means to defend your home and livelihood against all threats foreign and domestic."

Unless you live in a border town with a hostile country, foreign threats for which a firearm (or two for that matter) can be useful defense are very unlikely.

This does not invalidate that the government has the power to, and very well could at it's discretion oppress the people... at all. This type of response is tailored to make the listener feel guilty or stupid for advocating under a certain logos. To declare that it has a small probability of occurrence does not negate the probability all together. It argues from pathos as a replacement for logos.

Not that I'd expect you to go in that direction in the case of guns, but that is where the conversation inevitably leads in the case of oppositional conversation is geared to go. This is why when someone demands that I give up a construct at thier discretion a situation to justify MY position I refuse.

If I where to tell you that I want to own a gun in case anyone tries to enter my home with the intention of infringing upon my freedoms or ending my life I would like to have the means to defend myself. it should serve as sufficient for the requirements of the post I'm responding to.
But, where does the conversation go from there? It doesn't just stop there does it? I assume you would ask me to justify that concern as that's how we got here to begin with.

"What dept is it that you need a gun for?"

"But you are right, you have a right to state you need a gun to protect you from "the govt," even if you can not explain your fear."
Pathos leading again to an ethos AGAINST me. Again I remind that it is YOU who are trying to persuade ME... this is NOT how you do it... although I do find it... adorable?

As I've said it's not my place to construct scenarios. I stated a general concern.

Past that it's matter of who has the agenda. Who's trying to change who's mind? I'm certainly not trying to convert you to being a card-carrying member of the NRA. I'm not even trying to get you to look at a gun.

You will find that whenever you try to not only identify your own logos (you do so extraneously, might I add) but get people to subscribe to it, offending Ethos by assaulting your listener with phrases like "(I resisted the urge to insert a tin-foil hat pic right there for the CIA one..)" will never ever prove effective.

But if you wish to clarify, please stick with logos, and just answer simply: Jean, what objection do you have against me owning a gun that will most undoubtedly sit in my basement and collect dust and go unused?"

Again YOU ARE THE PERSUADER, you will accomplish nothing by attacking my reasons for doing so... you actually have to give a valid and persuasive reason to NOT.

Sorry it took a sec... I can't find a "reply to this for your last post"

I just wanted to answer for your last post, but I'm happy to just squelch it. I've accepted your apology in earnest and am ready to move on... =)
Not once, at all, did I ever in this whole thread state that I feared the government.

Furthermore my above post addressed your applealing to ethos, that means 'argument by character'. AND YOU RESORTED TO IT AGAIN HERE. Even after I mention that this is what you've been doing and that it has no effect you somehow feel that continuing will get you somewhere?

In fact I've stated that I cannot, nor to I endeavor to visualize a scenario where I feel that owning a gun would save me from my government. I merely stated a distrust in it. Do you 'trust' the government entirely, Jean? And yet you continue to assert ON MY BEHALF that I fear the government and that YOU want ME to justify the fear that YOU claim I have. I don't need to validate the fear you suppose I have for my government as a basis for owning a gun. You haven't even suppied that that's even a basis I have past cherry-picking my comments and "KEY-WORD" mining (barely even quote mining).

You've just validated every single one of my assertions in a single post. You don't even see that, do you?

I never stated that I "fear" the government AT ALL.


You haven't even substantiated that
A: I even fear the government and
B: That that "fear" is my sole basis owning a gun.

The only contexts in which I've even MENTIONED the government I've either stated that
1. currently I am secure with our government, but I do distrust it
2. that the current administration is no cause for concern that would warrant the use of violence
3. and in the case of people getting dragged out of their homes (WHICH I REMIND WAS YOUR CONSTRUCT) i would confront the issue nonviolently. Which, unless you're retarded, implies NO GUN!

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8KzXEsT04
skip to 7:30, the part that talks about the Dimestore Freud

The really pathetic thing is that you really seem to be under this impression that you've been doing well. The only people who are going to be drawn in by your debate are the people who already agree with you. Most anyone else will be repulsed by the hostile environment your creating. And the supposed notions of your "victory" (as that's obviously all your going for) is base off of a delusional ad-populum.

Thank you Jean. I know all I really know about you now. We're done. You're just going for some sort of "W".

And since I'm sensing the deep-seeded NEED for a trophy I'll go ahead and give it to you.


...I've really tried very very hard to be nice. But I refuse my character to be blindly spat upon for the sick amusement of some pathological nut-job who's afraid of militia groups.

As you've said yourself, it's all there to be looked at unless you delete your posts.
Text book. You're libelous. The amount of direct misquotes is astonishing.
"NEED a gun"
"Want a gun"
"I fear the government"
If you have an issue about how I've conducted myself up to this point feel free to report me... If this is the type of conduct that this site and community promotes and fosters, then I'm sure I can handle a ban comfortably.

I do not fear the government. That seems to be the talking point you keep latching on to. DESPITE the countless number of ways I've stated it.

You keep trying to get me to rationalize a fear that I've already addressed as not having.

So what exactly is it that you are gaining/trying to gain from this exchange? Dig trolling? Get a kick out of misrepresenting people's character?

You've made no valid point or remark for me to even reply to.

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8KzXEsT04
skip to 7:30, the part that talks about the Dimestore Freud... textbook. DO EET!

Please, Jean. In one or two lines... What is that extremely well worded question again?
"A few points:

-Realistically, how do you implement disciplined gun ownership?"

There are a number of practices that a gun owner can and should do to own them safely. (not having them loaded and under one's pillow comes immediately to mind)

-It levels the playing field indeed, but to an ever increasing degree of lethality.
Yes it does. I can't argue with that. One considers the balance at this point.

-Places where people are being systematically dragged away by their officials are another story alltogether.
It's happening here. Talk to Jean, apparently that's happening here in the US.
"Does learning martial arts provide the same empowerment?" No, Martial Arts is a huge waste of time other than simple exercise. :)

But to your core point of knowing self-defense, I think that it does. It's empowering to know that you can defend yourself against most people. It becomes confidence without the need to prove anything. I'd be interested in seeing how many fights happen at a MMA event versus WWE or a NFL Event. You don't want to swing on the quietly confident people. Those making a big show of themselves are like the cat arching it's back.
Yeah, I think there's a distinction to be made between A: people who simply know how to defend themselves and B: people seek out a means to dominance. Guns, to me, flow within the same vein. IMO 'B' justifies 'A'.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service