|
Post by Deimos on Jul 9, 2010 21:52:44 GMT -5
I think firearms are ok for other people, just not for completely insane, hate filled, crazy bastards like
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Jul 9, 2010 21:59:16 GMT -5
Atheist here, who would like to own a gun (it's just so damn expensive) I think guns are fine to own but that there should be regulations on who can have them, and on what kind of guns a legal (as many people have said, there's just no need for civilians to be armed beyond a certain level of power... armor piercing bullets? Why?)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 9, 2010 22:00:03 GMT -5
What? How do atheism & anti-gun translate into each other at all?
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jul 9, 2010 22:01:05 GMT -5
What? How do atheism & anti-gun translate into each other at all? Those damn liberal gun hating atheist commies! That's how.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 9, 2010 22:05:45 GMT -5
What? How do atheism & anti-gun translate into each other at all? According to a lot of people, atheist = liberal and liberal = hates all guns. More straw man bullshit, basically. In fairness, there are just as many people who assume that religious = conservative and conservative = love affair with guns.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 9, 2010 22:26:03 GMT -5
I'm an atheist, and like many of the others, I see no issue with owning guns so long as there are limitations. Why someone would need an automatic rifle or machine gun is beyond me. I guess I can see owning one as a collectors item, or for exprimental archaeological/historical research.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 9, 2010 22:40:02 GMT -5
I guess I can see owning one as a collectors item, or for exprimental archaeological/historical research. In which case, a specific permit and stricter limitations should apply, especially if one is ever going to discharge the weapon (for experimental reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Jul 9, 2010 22:54:59 GMT -5
Hate guns, although I've never seen a gun in my life. Still, I'm probably the exception considering this comes out of my utter hatred for the cowardice of attacking people from a distance.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 9, 2010 22:56:03 GMT -5
I'm an atheist, and like many of the others, I see no issue with owning guns so long as there are limitations. Why someone would need an automatic rifle or machine gun is beyond me. I guess I can see owning one as a collectors item, or for exprimental archaeological/historical research. For some firearms of interest to collectors it may be possible to outlaw certain kinds of ammunition, but not the actual gun. You know, things like a .50 round that have no use at all for civilians. After all, guns are nothing but awkward clubs without bullets.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 9, 2010 23:00:31 GMT -5
Very true. And would still allow the neccisary bullets for experimental research.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Jul 9, 2010 23:31:56 GMT -5
I own a shotgun myself, and I am all for law-abiding people owning firearms, provided that the responsibility involved is drilled into their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 10, 2010 0:19:18 GMT -5
Atheist here. I'm fine with responsible gun ownership. I actually own an antique one myself, though it's a family heirloom, and couldn't handle modern ammo. I wouldn't mind owning one for target shooting as I find that to be a lot of fun.
I am for there being regulation, such as the 3-day waiting period for purchase, requiring them to be locked up (in a cabinet or by using trigger locks) for storage, and restrictions on where they can be carried. Guns, by their nature, are deadly weapons, and as such regulation is needed to protect people's lives from the stupidity and irresponsibility of others. Yet while I'm for restrictions I'm also for people's freedoms, and want to make sure that regulations serve useful purposes and reduce unwanted fatalities.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jul 10, 2010 0:48:53 GMT -5
Agnostic (and liberal). I don't have a problem with people owning guns as long as we have reasonable and consistent weapon laws. In fact, I'm generally in favor of the right to bear arms. Maybe I want a few more restrictions than a lot of conservatives, but by no means does that mean I want guns banned.
Personally, I don't own any guns and don't want any, but it's not that I have anything against them morally. They're just not my weapon of choice. Frankly, I'd like to see fewer restrictions on some kinds of weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 10, 2010 1:13:43 GMT -5
Frankly, I'd like to see fewer restrictions on some kinds of weapons. Personally, I'd like to see the laws changed here in Canada with regards to carrying pepper spray. Animal defence sprays are legal for carrying, but even in self-defence situations the law is really iffy about using them against another person. I'm fine with banning particularly potent sprays by either limiting how concentrated it is or only allowing certain agents to be used, however, I do think that we should be allowed to carry weaker forms of mace/pepper spray for the purpose of self-defence, and I don't think anyone should get slapped with charges for using it if they were clearly protecting themselves from an attacker.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Jul 10, 2010 1:19:17 GMT -5
I don't have any problem with firearms, though I really don't think automatic and/or armor piercing weapons should be available to the public. There's absolutely no reason for the average person to have that kind of firepower. I disagree. The whole point of having a second amendment is so that it is possible for a united populace to overpower the police/military. It's not so much about revolution as it is about prevention. If the government tried to round people up and put them into camps in the USA it would be a fucking bloodbath. Thousands of cops would die and they would eventually just say fuck it and back off. In most other countries it could be done with minimal casualties to their side. That's why even armor piercing automatic weapons are a fundamental human right.
|
|