Another gun thread...

[Napoléon]

It won't be crazy or criminal that tougher gun laws (tougher than whats on the books already - and I keep imploring people to actually go check the books btw) affect

Oh for christ sake, this logic keeps coming up but it's still not an argument against better gun regulation. Obviously tougher gun laws are going to affect the average person more, but to say it won't affect criminals either is flat out wrong.

"Oh criminals don't pay attention to laws". No shit.

[Whateverist]

I just don't get this defense against the tyranny of government argument. Our system is rotten as hell because of the unchecked influence of money. But the last presidential election seems to have shown that there are limits to what money will buy. It is hard to imagine the issue so important and so unaddressable through democratic processes that it would ever make sense to grab weapons and start shooting bureaucrats and soldiers and politicians and fellow citizens with whom we disagree. To my mind, that is crazy talk. Never mind that the government has bigger guns, I just don't think you can make the case that there is so little input into government that a gun is your best solution. Revolution is bloody and messy and a horror you wouldn't want unless your life is just a living hell. Paying more in taxes or giving up private ownership of semi-automatic weapons is not sufficient grievance to justify a blood bath. The only bad guys are the ones who want something you don't. They're not tyrannical, they just disagree with you.

Candidate Bachmann was justifiably mocked for suggesting that if elections didn't go her way that "2nd Amendments" were a possible alternative. Until I hear what exactly would justify unleashing armageddon, I think this argument deserves to be mocked. And since the thought of overthrowing a government with the war machine that ours has at its disposal is absurd anyhow, I think gun lovers need a better justification why the rest of us shouldn't use democratic remedies to take your stupid, bloody toys away.

Oh, and merry christmas everyone! (I'm on winter break and loving it.)

[Minimalist]

And the beat goes on................

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21...48466.html[/quote]

U.S. Shooting Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 100

[Free_Thinker]

What is it that gives someone 'the right to bear arms'?

I'd rather not get into the whole founding fathers/constitution/fighting oppressive governments crap (unless that really is the reason you think you're entitled to bear arms, because your government says so).

I know that you wanted an answer from the moral perspective, but I'm not going to give that to you in this post. I'm going to concentrate on the constitutional perspective, because that is the only real answer to your question of, "What is it that gives someone the right to bear arms."

If you need a moral answer, you'll need to ask your question differently or ask a different question.

Quite frankly and obviously, the Second Amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. If you are interested in the Founders' reasons for creating the Second Amendment, you will need to reference the Federalist Papers and other such documents to see what the Founders were thinking. You will have to understand their thoughts and reasoning within the context of their time and their life experiences. Humans have not really evolved much (if at all) since that time, therefore, human nature is the same now as it was back then. Therefore, in my opinion, their reasoning back then is still valid in today's modern times.

U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms for the purpose of fighting of an oppressive and tyrannical government. So far, our government has not become completely oppressive or tyrannical. That is probably because we the people have arms.

The core philosophy behind the Second Amendment is that, if the People (as a whole) do not have access to arms, they will become weakened and enslaved by the government (aka, the elites and those who have the power and money).

If we look at where we are today, we can see a lot of government corruption (the corporations have taken over many facets of government and our government as it exists today does not fight for us, but rather, for the elites (i.e. corporations and international wealth holders) who have infiltrated it via the Revolving Door, campaign contributions, long-term slow but deliberate manipulations of the law, and on and on the list goes).

If this trend continues, and we are disarmed as a people, that will be the last straw to our complete enslavement. The erosion of our liberties will accelerate and soon we will be subjects to our government instead of citizens within it.

This may seem to be an old-fashioned and out-dated argument from hundreds of years ago; but it still holds. It is a simple one, but one that reflects the unfortunate truths about human nature: that we are prone to greed. That when unfettered greed corrupts human beings, they will do whatever it takes to hold onto their power and grow it at the expense of everything and everyone, no matter the cost.

It takes raw force to oppose that level of evil.

[Whateverist]

So strange that people who recognize nonsense when they hear it in regard to gods and religion fall under the spell of this sort of hogwash. It ain't happening. There won't be a suspension of our democratic process by any tyrant nor will we storm the capital with muskets. We will suffer a continued erosion of responsible government by moneyed interests but at no point will they overreach so egregiously that wholesale carnage makes sense. Those looking forward to running around like in the movie Braveheart who can't be bothered to put any effort into making the government we already have accountable through democratic processes don't deserve any better government and will never have it with such wishy washy commitment.

[Brian37]

If this trend continues, and we are disarmed as a people, that will be the last straw to our complete enslavement. The erosion of our liberties will accelerate and soon we will be subjects to our government instead of citizens within it.

Yea because having all public employee's armed with guns won't be a police state itself.

Why stop at public employees, lets all have armed people at every private and public building, business and house and teach each other to shoot first and ask questions later. Hell, if it's good enough for John Wayne and Dirty Harry, lets apply to all aspects of life.

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!

Really? Are more guns the solution? That sounds like a prison system to me, not freedom.

What kind of fucking Hollywood script are you smoking? I think you have watched "The Patriot" one too many times.

Freedom is not "Only when I get to do what I want".

Gun death is a problem so I am tired of the "me me me me me" saying "it isn't a problem" when the majority of EVEN GUN OWNERS KNOW IT IS!

[Ryantology]

Quite frankly and obviously, the Second Amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution codifies rights, it is not the source of them.

If this trend continues, and we are disarmed as a people, that will be the last straw to our complete enslavement. The erosion of our liberties will accelerate and soon we will be subjects to our government instead of citizens within it.

Pure fantasy in the United States, where the political mindset of a gun advocate is likelier than not to correlate to a social mindset against recognizing the rights of minorities, women, homosexuals, the poor and the non-religious. Furthermore, several first-world nations have virtually disarmed their population and no tyrannies have arisen from them. Not too many people would seriously compare the likes of Japan, Norway, or Australia to the mythical totalitarian hellholes gun advocates warn against. It's like listening to theists warn us about hell and every ounce as credible.

The number of homicides and accidental deaths is far greater than the number of armed insurrections against tyrannical government, and you are implying that 40 thousand deaths per year is a reasonable price to pay for this so-called protection. Which, as I and others have pointed out, is no protection at all because the government has access to resources and weapons which would crush any armed rebellion in very short order.

[Brian37]

The number of homicides and accidental deaths is far greater than the number of armed insurrections against tyrannical government, and you are implying that 40 thousand deaths per year is a reasonable price to pay for this so-called protection.

Yea, as long as the criminal and gang banger and domestic murderer can illegally get guns the "responsible" ones don't owe society shit from preventing the bad players, as long as they prevent "tyranny" of the government, which us "liberals" HAVE NEVER BEEN AGAINST PREVENTING!

[Zen Badger]

Having lots of guns so you can protect yourself from the ebil gummit!!!

Yeah, that really fucking worked for David Koresh and the Branch Davidians didn't it.

[Brian37]

Having lots of guns so you can protect yourself from the ebil gummit!!!

Yeah, that really fucking worked for David Koresh and the Branch Davidians didn't it.

Got this link from another atheist website thought it was a good indictment of the absurdity of the gun nutters. Kudos to the video makers.