Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Arturo on April 28, 2018, 01:37:28 AM

Title: Guns
Post by: Arturo on April 28, 2018, 01:37:28 AM


I agree with Ice T here. It's built into the constitution. People have been trying to change it for years. And the guns aren't for hunting, they are for protecting against a tyrannical government. But the government is tyrannical by nature going back to it's conception. There were slaves. And then the whole country is founded on "stolen land". And he says there can be no justice on stolen land. And that further emphasizes it's tyranny if it's true. Which as far as I can see from those who the land was stolen from, that is true.

I know a lot of people here are born and raised in the USA and I love you. But still. Facts are facts.

I still don't like guns though. I like the fact that he showed the paranoid situation clearly that "would you want to be the only one without guns?" and then brought up that he will give up his guns when everyone else does. I think that is fair. I would too.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: No one on April 28, 2018, 01:53:18 AM
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Arturo on April 28, 2018, 02:04:04 AM
Yeah the guns aren't for hunting. They are for protecting against a tyrannical government. Which is why they kill people. They are for killing.

I mean, hammers don't hammer things.

I hammer things....with my hammer.
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Dave on April 28, 2018, 06:19:28 AM
I would not call all those gun owners a "well regulated militia" as your Constitution requires.

QuoteA 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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And, allowing for selective interviewing and reporting, the most vommon responses to "Why do you carry a gun" have nothing to fo with "the security of a free state" (certainly as applied to external threats - like the British) but a lot to fo with "Because of all those dangerous, violent gun carrying nutters out there." The irony is completely missed.

A nation with, possibly, a fair proportion of its citizenry afraid of their fellow citizens? "If you are not a known friend you are a potential enemy"? Less to do with the Consitution, more to do with a paranoid mentality?

PS: in my interest and research in this subject it seems to be only a few people who are sufficiently afraid of the federsl government to wish to bear arms in defence against it compared to those with a fear of their neighbours.

PPS: the use of language has changed since 1787 I would bet that the intention was more like, "The security of a free state being necessary the right to bear arms as a well regulated militia shall not be infringed." But, lawyers and those with their own agenda are well versed in translating things to their perceived advantage, the words rather than the spirit. "Screw the rest of you!"
Title: Re: Guns
Post by: Arturo on April 28, 2018, 03:27:19 PM
^^I agree they are not a well regulated militia. From what I heard the "well regulated militia" no longer exists.

And I also agree with the paranoid statement. Looking at the ICBM defenses the united states has, it basically protects from anything ever even touching the united states and there was all this panic about North Korea bombing us. And they are trying to get more missile defenses. Like we have such a wall around us already that we don't even need an actual wall. The wall is in our collective minds.