Poll: Do you support the right to bear arms?
Yes
No
Keep Hunting Rifles Only
Pistols but not AR(s) + 3
Assualt Rifles + 3 & 4
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2012, 05:04 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-08-2012 08:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A person can buy an old howitzer in the U.S. you know? You can buy a howitzer, rpg, semi-auto shotgun, etc. They are listed as "destructive devices" and do require more restrict background checks and check offs to purchase legally. They have to be registered when getting these weapons; that goes along with them proving some reason to have such a weapon that will go along with promoting public safety.

Why is those laws not being attacked if there ought to be no restrictions on guns/arms. If those laws are perfectly acceptable, what would be harmful to add automatic/semi-automatic weapons to just require more extensive background checks and reasonable purchase checks?

The second amendment was also purposely given to the people because the hopeful plan was to not have a standing Army during non-waring times. The Bill of Rights in general as well as that amendment are to protect people from the Government first and foremost, but every rule is without a sole reason.

The arguments are generally about where to draw the lines; only truly crazy people want no restrictions whatsoever, and only unrealistic people want a total ban.

I and others have given good reasons for personal gun ownership that have not been responded to by the anti-gunners. No one here has called for no restrictions.

It's a matter of where a line is drawn, and concerning if it should be adjusted for whatever reason or not. I wasn't talking about banning; the real issue ought to be about qualified purchases and restrictions that aren't violations of a 2nd amendment.

There are plenty of reasons to have them, which is why it's NOT a consideration in bills being passed to ban them. The only real law issue that was brought up recently was about the certain ammo clips that were once restricted yet are no longer.

You have reasons to legally get the weapons, but why should the restrictions not be stronger and involve more detailed background checks which is what is done for the so called destructive weapons?

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2012, 05:19 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 05:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  The arguments are generally about where to draw the lines; only truly crazy people want no restrictions whatsoever, and only unrealistic people want a total ban.

I and others have given good reasons for personal gun ownership that have not been responded to by the anti-gunners. No one here has called for no restrictions.

It's a matter of where a line is drawn, and concerning if it should be adjusted for whatever reason or not. I wasn't talking about banning; the real issue ought to be about qualified purchases and restrictions that aren't violations of a 2nd amendment.

There are plenty of reasons to have them, which is why it's NOT a consideration in bills being passed to ban them. The only real law issue that was brought up recently was about the certain ammo clips that were once restricted yet are no longer.

You have reasons to legally get the weapons, but why should the restrictions not be stronger and involve more detailed background checks which is what is done for the so called destructive weapons?

There are some states where no permit is required, others where the permitting process is extensive.
In many states, it is the local police chief who determines the licensing; not a bad idea in principle, although open to abuse.

I have no problem with a process that catches those who really shouldn't have firearms, but does not unduly restrict the average, law-abiding person.

And I believe you are referring to magazines, not clips.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-08-2012, 07:23 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
Chas

Sorry for ducking out of this for a while. Sometimes, I actually have to work (actually it's 9 PM and I'm still working but taking a little "mental health" break).

Anyway, getting back to your points:

(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Military weapons are fully automatic; we're talking about semi-automatic hers, so your 'advancing military' allusion is just more scare mongering.
A semi-automatic pistol or a revolver is more effective for self defense than a single-shot, pump, bolt-action, lever-action. The time to a second or subsequent shot may be the difference between life and death.

When hunting, the first shot may not kill, so the quick second shot is important and humane. Here, a bolt, pump, or lever-action is usually effective enough.

We are going to disagree here. I'm not gun expert but my understanding is there are kits you can buy on-line to turn your guns into automatic weapons. Also, I will ask the question again: who do you think is breaking into your house? I have 2 dogs and their barking is enough to keep pretty much anyone out of my house. You are far, far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member with a gun in your home. The statistics are not even close on this.

(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  The crazy Swiss mass murderer isn't going to be concerned about breaking the seal on the ammunition package. The fact is that, even though the Swiss have better guns and better training, they don't go out and shoot people. That says it's the society, not the guns.

No, it doesn't say that. What it says is that the crazy Swiss mass murdered is going to run out of ammo long before his American counter part does and won't be able to take out nearly the same amount of people. The Swiss have a great many guns, but they are seriously lacking in bullets. The gun is kind of useless without them. If you are going to make the argument that Americans are just fundamentally more violent than the rest of humanity, you're going to need to back that up with some evidence. Good luck finding some.

(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Like I said before, let's get our statistics. You can spin a theory about coincidence, but let's have facts.

The sources for this information are innumerable. I was trying to find an easy way to link all this and it is just too many different web sites. So, I'll start with this: Wiki on US gun violence

I fully concede that Wikilinks is not much of a source for information or to prove a point. But, I thought this wiki not only had some good information in it but also provides a lot of source links to verify what it is saying. Tell me what else you are specifically interested and I'll find the facts you ask for to back it up.

(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am quite convinced that guns play a role in the incidence and severity of violent crime, but they are not the sole or main cause of the violence.

Guns are not a cause of violence at all. What guns are is a tool of violence. They make violence more likely, more probably, more devastating, and likely to cause more damage to more people. But, the ultimate responsibility falls upon the people who are using the guns. I don't think there is any reasonable denial of that. The point is that crazy, angry people don't walk into a movie theater with a knife and kill 12 people and injure dozens more. A man with a knife is not going to kill 32 Va. Tech students and stab an additional 17 more. Two disgruntled high school students with knives are not going to carry out the Columbine massacre. There is a reason you rarely hear about a drive bye stabbing. Parents don't accidentally stab their children when they come home later then expected. Of course a maniac with a knife can do damage, and kill people. Of course that can, and has, happened. But, you are not getting the same type of body count. Nothing creates the type of carnage that a gun can create (unless people start throwing hand grenades around).

And, your right to own one should not transcend my right to not have to worry about having some loon pop a cap in my ass when all i want to do is watch Anne Hathaway in her leather Cat Woman suit.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2012, 08:00 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 09:22 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 05:01 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  Congratulations on missing that point, entirely. It isn't the best in the world if it isn't available to all.
I didn't miss the point at all. It is illegal for hospitals to refuse treatment for any reason. Access is not an issue. Coverage for some is and I admit there are some people who fall into gaps.

And that's why it's so fuckin' expensive. You talk like it isn't, but you're either on your parents healthcare still or you've got good healthcare yourself and are just completely oblivious. My bet is the former.

I personally can afford it just fine, but unlike you I care deeply about those that can't. Medical expenses are the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the US, even when many are insured - because expenses are out of control (Source). People going into the ER to get care is one of the reasons it is so expensive - that cost is being absorbed somewhere, and it's our pockets.

The ER isn't going to be able to help treat cancer or provide therapy for serious injuries, or any of the many reasons to go to a primary care physician or specialist. They're there to stabilize people and treat immediate injuries. They don't even have the facilities for much of the more in-depth treatment you'd need for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. - they'd transfer you to another part of the hospital and you'd have to pay to get treatment.

(15-08-2012 09:25 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 05:08 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  World Health Organization ranking of health systems. Well, if the "best in the world" equates to 37th, then yes, you're not even slightly wrong... or deluded. Absolutely.

I could care less what WHO says. I bet tat people are not flocking to the 36 countries that listed above us as much as people are here.

Give me a break. You want to know something? Many US citizens travel out of the US and seek healthcare elsewhere. SURPRISE! The reason? It's so damned expensive here (sauce). 29% of those polled said they would do so for significant & necessary procedures.

(15-08-2012 09:28 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 07:23 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sib-bKfAm...ature=plcp

Such GREAT healthcare system we have... Just one example out of many, but one shouldn't have to rely 100% on your job to get treatment.

Yeah, far be it that anyone would have to work for something. Either way, being the best does not mean it is perfect. I admit there are flaws in our system regarding coverage, but the quality of our healthcare is absolutely the best in the world.

Oh, far be it that anyone would have to work for the right to live. Can't afford $300k for cancer treatments? Fuck you, go die in a ditch. What a compassionate way to view things. Everything's about $$$ isn't it? Don't got it, you aren't worth shit. A compassionate society is one that helps those less fortunate, which in this case includes the middle class.

Guess what, I do work for what I've got, I'm just not a selfish twat. I just don't think that earning good money means anything about my value as a person.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
15-08-2012, 10:28 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 01:25 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 12:50 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  LOL, when your argument get's weak, attack grammar and spelling.

Oh no, my argument isn't weak. The logic lesson was just a bonus... think of it as a little present for you. And it was logic, not grammar, nor spelling.

Logic.

A useful thing to grasp when you are in a debate.

Which you've already lost.

As I said; y'welcome.

Logic, spelling, garmmar, what the fuck ever.....the point is instead of actually addressing the subject, you felt the need to attack the way I write. Thanks for the lesson though, not the one about logic though, the one on how not to be an ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2012, 10:43 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 08:00 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 09:22 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  I didn't miss the point at all. It is illegal for hospitals to refuse treatment for any reason. Access is not an issue. Coverage for some is and I admit there are some people who fall into gaps.

And that's why it's so fuckin' expensive. You talk like it isn't, but you're either on your parents healthcare still or you've got good healthcare yourself and are just completely oblivious. My bet is the former.

I personally can afford it just fine, but unlike you I care deeply about those that can't. Medical expenses are the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the US, even when many are insured - because expenses are out of control (Source). People going into the ER to get care is one of the reasons it is so expensive - that cost is being absorbed somewhere, and it's our pockets.

The ER isn't going to be able to help treat cancer or provide therapy for serious injuries, or any of the many reasons to go to a primary care physician or specialist. They're there to stabilize people and treat immediate injuries. They don't even have the facilities for much of the more in-depth treatment you'd need for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc. - they'd transfer you to another part of the hospital and you'd have to pay to get treatment.

(15-08-2012 09:25 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  I could care less what WHO says. I bet tat people are not flocking to the 36 countries that listed above us as much as people are here.

Give me a break. You want to know something? Many US citizens travel out of the US and seek healthcare elsewhere. SURPRISE! The reason? It's so damned expensive here (sauce). 29% of those polled said they would do so for significant & necessary procedures.

(15-08-2012 09:28 AM)tnt4philly Wrote:  Yeah, far be it that anyone would have to work for something. Either way, being the best does not mean it is perfect. I admit there are flaws in our system regarding coverage, but the quality of our healthcare is absolutely the best in the world.

Oh, far be it that anyone would have to work for the right to live. Can't afford $300k for cancer treatments? Fuck you, go die in a ditch. What a compassionate way to view things. Everything's about $$$ isn't it? Don't got it, you aren't worth shit. A compassionate society is one that helps those less fortunate, which in this case includes the middle class.

Guess what, I do work for what I've got, I'm just not a selfish twat. I just don't think that earning good money means anything about my value as a person.
For the record, I am 48 yrs old and have not been on my parents policy for 30 yrs. I have four kids between the ages of 15 and 29 and I raising the youngest one on my own. I have one full time job and a part time job on top of that.


There many many reasons why healthcare in the US is expensive though people using the ER as primary care is one of them.

I never said that I was against helping the needy, but there are far too many people in the US that have a hand out mentality. I admit that there are gaps in our system. The working poor are one of the groups that fall in the cracks and we need to find a way to cover those people. The fact is, out healthcare system does cover a huge majority of the country and there is no ready to fuck things up for them in an effort to help those that ate not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 06:00 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 10:28 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  Logic, spelling, garmmar, what the fuck ever.....the point is instead of actually addressing the subject, you felt the need to attack the way I write. Thanks for the lesson though, not the one about logic though, the one on how not to be an ass.

I love how you lump them all together (logic, spelling & garmmar(sic)) as if they're things that you don't fuss yourself over.

The lesson on not being an ass is one that you've spent 48 years (apparently) failing to grasp. You've demonstrated an I'm-all-right-Jack attitude in this thread; so long as you have good healthcare, fuck everyone else. And it isn't just about the working poor. Did you even watch that video? The one where a working man with a dying daughter was sacked so that his company's health premiums didn't rise? He wasn't the working poor. He was a regular guy who was punished (losing his daughter and his job) because money is more important than anything else.

And his case isn't a unique one. If health insurance companies can find a loop-hole, they'll find it. Money > health.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 07:18 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
I will answer in more depth later, but I will respond to this:
Quote:And, your right to own one should not transcend my right to not have to worry about having some loon pop a cap in my ass when all i want to do is watch Anne Hathaway in her leather Cat Woman suit.

My right to self defense does trump your right not to worry.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-08-2012, 08:05 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
I got to see Anne Hathway in her leather suit in IMax 2 weeks ago. When was the last time you needed a gun to defend yourself? When have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself, for that matter?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 08:59 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(16-08-2012 08:05 AM)BnW Wrote:  I got to see Anne Hathway in her leather suit in IMax 2 weeks ago. When was the last time you needed a gun to defend yourself? When have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself, for that matter?

See this post.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Josh Tolly show is looking for atheists T.H. 8 242 04-06-2014 08:13 AM
Last Post: Michael_Tadlock
  Question for anti-abortion atheists Hierophant 143 4,545 23-05-2014 07:33 AM
Last Post: Walter
  Are there any nonreligious reasons gays shouldn't have rights Aleprauchanist 26 461 12-04-2014 07:12 PM
Last Post: GirlyMan
  Why do so many leftist atheists endorse Nietzsche? janthuffy 53 1,869 16-09-2013 10:55 PM
Last Post: black_squirrel
  Moral men and women will deny women equal rights. Greatest I am 70 2,685 24-06-2013 10:12 AM
Last Post: cjlr
  Shut up! I am talking about human rights here! HU.Junyuan 21 934 13-06-2013 10:58 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
  Petition to examine bans on Atheists in office. witerat 15 566 25-01-2013 01:47 PM
Last Post: GirlyMan
Forum Jump: