I know we're all different thinkers, but I'm just curious if there is a consensus view among atheists regarding firearms?

Views: 1542

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, I guess that 2nd amendment thing doesn't mean what it states.  >:-(
Do you know what a militia is?

There was Atheist Nexus Militia but it was 'disappeared' some time ago. Relics of the  organisations artwork still survive in archives;

Yeah, the police.  It is a separated statement.  The text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It recognizes that a police force is needed for the security of the state, at the same time the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  If it stated that it was the right of the militia, it would state as such.  The founding fathers just fought a war where people brought their own guns to fight the war with and realized that disarming the populace was a major necessary step to allow tyranny to happen.  Nobody is stating you have to have a gun.  You can't take other peoples' guns as it is their right outlined in our constitution. 

 

please think logicaly; if i intend to use a gun for a crime i will have my gun cocked and ready. even if you have a gun and go for it i will shoot you first, then rob your body and take your gun too;, net results you have still been robbed, and i now have an extra gun. and oh by the way you are dead

but if you had given me the money you would not be dead and i would not have a second gun. and maybe you could identify me to the police.

What does the other guy look like now?
This type of defensive firearm use happens a LOT.  It doesn't get sensationalized, because a) no one got shot, and b) it's usually not reported to police.
I am thinking logically.  You know the logical first person to rob?  The person I know who doesn't have a gun.  It's an equalizer, not a guarantee.  If you enjoy being a target, then so be it.  Don't make me a target with you.

 

no, the first person to rob is whoever comes down the street when no one else is looking.!! Unless you walk around all the time with your gun in your hand., the aggressor always has the advantage. the scenario is simple; I shoot you  without saying anything at all, no "stick um up" or give

me your money"  i then take your money AND the extra gun you wont be needing any more!!

More guns are not the answer

Willful ignorance is not a strong position for debate.  Explain Park's situation then?  He's still alive, his would be muggers/robbers are still alive.  Why the anomaly?

folks, think about it, , the escalation that you have proposed, i.e.  everyone armed  will result in exactly this scenario. of course there will be anomlys, where the robber is overpowered , and probably some would be robbers will change their minds, but I am telling you the hard core /  or marginal mental cases will escalate too!.

more guns are not the answer

more guns are not the answer

 

I challenge you to find anyone in this thread who claims that it IS the answer.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service