should gay/bisexual atheists

[beergood]

be allowed the proper arms to defend ourselves?

[safeinOhio]

1. Or, one might ask,

should those that would attack gay/bisexual atheists have free access to firearms?

Define proper arms, just so I will understand.

[beergood]

2. "Define proper arms, just so I will understand."

a 200lb male. with proper training

while i am a 100lb male with no training. i have received many beatings due to my beliefs. i do not deserve those beatings. i want the ability to fight back.

i have no desire to cause violence. i still desire the ability to defend myself from it.

[safeinOhio]

4. In that case

a can of mace would be just right. I'd suggest some proper training in self-defense can go a long way. I have watched many 200 lb guys get their butts kicked by a smaller person. Anyone with "proper training" would know not to attack anyone without being attacked. I would think you could end up in a bunch of trouble if you began to shoot unarmed attackers, that's why I suggest mace or taser against unarmed attackers.

Best of luck and I wish you well.

[VulgarPoet]

35. A can of mace and a snooker ball on a 2ft length of paracord.

Admittedly, I totally stole the idea for the snooker ball weapon from a game coming out soon; but fuck me if it doesn't look functional. Dislocate a shoulder or disorient, douse in mace, haul ass.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. sadly, in most states adults can't legally purchase firearms, and in fact if they are caught with a

firearm in their house they may be subject to summary arrest and even a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Really, it's frightening how much prohibition there is, in the United States, on the freedom of consenting adults to obtain firearms for their own personal use.



Oh, wait, sorry, did I say firearms? Fuck that, you can get em at Wal-Mart. I must have meant weed.

[beergood]

5. im very pro pot

but pot cant protect you from a mob of assholes intent on doing your harm just because you have a different ideology.

the reason i post this is because CA. is very pro pot, while being very anti-gun. CA basically banned the purchase of ammo. i can legally buy pot in this state easier than i can buy ammo. forget about obtaining the right to carry. they even restrict the type of knifes you can carry. CA does not recognize the the right of self defense.

[LeftyMom]

6. That's bullshit.

The law is that buying ammo in CA requires a background check. If you can't legally buy a gun you can't buy ammo. That's not a ban, it's a reasonable restriction.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. As noted in the response to you, a background check on ammo doesn't mean it is "basically banned"

it is "basically banned" for violent felons who wouldn't be able to buy guns.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article88521977.html

Q: Do I have to get a permit to buy ammunition?

A: No. But under Senate Bill 1235 as of July 2019 you will need to pass a background check, which involves the vendor running your information through a California Department of Justice system to see if you are prohibited from owning guns (for example, because of a violent felony). If not, you should be clear to buy.

So the only way your line about "i can legally buy pot in this state easier than i can buy ammo" (another salient difference being, the pot isn't ever going to kill anyone) would be logically consistent is if you are a violent felon prohibited from purchasing a firearm who also is a current California medical marijuana patient.

Otherwise, it's hyperbole.


Gun people need to get a grip. No one is going to take the precious.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be a victim of the gun before...

ever using it in self defense:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426

The question is what type of arms are you talking about, and how would they be effective?

[beergood]

51. Statistically speaking

i am more likely to be a victim of violence than a straight christen male.

should i just accept this? or should i fight back?

[Humanist_Activist]

52. Not sure what you are supposed to accept here...

you would increase your risk of being a victim of firearm violence by possessing firearms yourself than you would without, regardless of other demographic considerations.

Firearms aren't, at least from what the evidence tells us, an effective means of self defense. If you have contrary evidence to justify owning firearms, I'm all ears.

[LWolf]

9. Should we,

as a society, address the root causes of our disease of hate, fear, and aggression, or should we keep on hating and keep feeding the myth that more guns = more safety?

[beergood]

17. agreed

weapons=harm. i have no desire to cause harm, but rather to defend myself from harm. we should address the root cause of violence rather than the weapon used to cause violence. knives, swords, guns, crossbows, bows, fists, feet. are the tools of violence. but what is the cause? why do we harm ourselves, our environment, our fellow animals/insect? fear and hate is a strong motivator.

[LWolf]

20. I have wondered, for a very long time,

why people seem to want, to need, to hate and to judge. Maybe because it gives them the internal excuse they need to commit violence.

Remove one object of hate and judgement and they simply move on to something else; they don't go away, and the original hate doesn't either; it just goes underground. There's such a long, long list of groups and things people hate. And they are all subject to some form of violence; physical and psychological/social/emotional.

[RKP5637]

29. Love vs. hatred. Some get healthy highs from love, others get high on hatred. I've

thought about this many times, and I think some are addicted to hatred. They get a rush, endorphin high, from their hatred and comradery with those of similar ilk. It just feels good to them to hate, they are hard-wired for it.

[LWolf]

30. And that is really

the source of all our societal and political dysfunctions.

How do we wean people off of hate, one person at a time?

[beergood]

45. its an excuse to hate oneself

hate of yourself leads to hate of others. i have experienced this myself, but i was rationale enough to recognize it.

as master yoda says.

[LWolf]

49. Yes.

It always leads back to the self. I've noted this many times, both with myself and with others.

[TheFrenchRazor]

43. your word will fall on a lot of deaf ears here; many are determined to blame guns or literally anyth

anything but the criminal for criminal acts.

[Iggo]

10. No.

Since you've jumped down the throat of everyone who answered Yes, I assume the answer you're looking for is No.

So there you go.

Happy now?

[beergood]

13. my apoligies

this was not my intent. i think i fucked up, in my phrasing of the question and my response to it. i shall leave it up as an example of my stupidity. thank you for your response.

[jmg257]

11. Sure, we all should. So be aware your attackers will also have the same 'allowances'.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. You already are allowed

Not sure what the point of the rhetoric is.

[beergood]

14. bullshit

in CA i must ask my legislatures to have the right to carry firearms. they even limit the type of knives we allowed to carry.

[cwydro]

16. Response #8 already addressed this.

Are you not getting the answers you wanted?

[beergood]

18. no it didn't

CA legislators get to determine whether or not we CA residents can carry. they restrict the types of knives we can carry, as well as other self defence weapons we can carry. we can not carry batons, certain walking sticks are considered weapons. some places consider steel toe boots weapons. im am an ignorant piece of shit, please provide proof im wrong.

[cwydro]

21. Wait, what?

You're asking me to provide proof that you're not an "ignorant piece of shit" as you call yourself?

I'm confused here.

[beergood]

34. yes

i define myself a an ignorant piece of shit. what i ask is prove my ideology wrong. many people share my ideology, are we all wrong?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. Is California only doing this to gay atheists?

The answer to that question is no.

[stone space]

15. Gundamentalism and the Worship of the Holy Gun is the very antithesis of atheism.

Guns only offer the Illusion of Omnipotence.

And atheism is not about the quest for Omnipotence, anyway.

[beergood]

19. i worship nothing

i'm against ideology. prove me wrong and i will change my opinion.

i used to identify as cisgendered straight male. now i identify as a cisgendered bisexual male. i studied and read a lot of books. i am willing to change my beliefs, with adequate proof!

[stone space]

37. You're against idiology?

i worship nothing

i'm against ideology. prove me wrong and i will change my opinion.

That's not the impression that I got in post #34

i define myself a an ignorant piece of shit. what i ask is prove my ideology wrong. many people share my ideology, are we all wrong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028200185#post34

[beergood]

48. i think we misunderstood

each other, while i have an ideology, i am willing to change it with adequate proof.

i used to be a christian who was opposed to homosexelity. i am now an athesit bisexeual. i changed my beliefs after studying and reading other texts than the bible.

i am willing to change my beliefs with adequate proof.

[MynameisBlarney]

28. Wait...what?

How did you get all that from the OP?

[stone space]

31. If my post had been contained in the OP, I'd have had no reason to defend atheists and atheism.

But as an atheist, I don't like being used to push the Religion of the NRA.

[beergood]

32. im an an atetist

the nra ila is backlash to anti gunners

agin i am willing to change my beliefs/ideas provided the proper proof.

[beergood]

33. i am well read

but still an idiot.
i have read comic books, manga, the US constitution, the US declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers, 1984, animal farm, a brave new world, communist manifesto, and many others. there is still much i need to learn.

prove me wrong!

[MynameisBlarney]

36. Ah, gotcha.

Understood.
Carry on.

[TheFrenchRazor]

41. well gun ownership and "gundamentalism" are certainly two different things. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. Is there a problem with govt Denying arms

To LGBT people specifically?

The answer to that question is no.

There is a problem though with du gun nuts pretending their nuttiness is about civil rights violations

[cwydro]

23. Perfectly put. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. I live to be perfect :)

[cwydro]

26. Lol!

[TheFrenchRazor]

42. there is no problem with the govt singling out LGBT people to deny them the same rights

rights everybody else has??!! really? i think your anti-gun extremism has may be clouding you judgement.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. Please don't lie about what I said to

Enhance your gun insanity. I said the government is not impeding LGBT gun rights. That is an accurate statement

[MynameisBlarney]

27. Why shouldn't you/we?

I can't think of any reason why the fuck not.

[MicaelS]

38. Of course, as long

As you can comply with on the questions on a Form 4473, you can purchase a firearm.

Whether you should or not is up to you. A gun is not a talisman against criminals, it is not like a crucifix against a vampire.

It a tool for use in the gravest extreme when your life, or those of loved may be on danger.

If you are not psychologically and mentally prepared for the possibility of having to take human life, do not buy a firearm for self defense.

In fact the same would apply to any deadly weapon.

[TheFrenchRazor]

40. guns are called "the great equalizer" for a reason; smaller people sometimes need weapons to defend

defend themselves, and they should absolutely have that right. i am also a small gay atheist and somewhat gender non-conforming, and let me tell you, i have run into more than a few people (total strangers) who i am certain would have killed me if they thought they could get away with it. i don't carry a weapon, but i can definitely understand the need of some people to do that. the anti-gun absolutism (cultural and legal) is unquestionably biased against smaller people (and pretty much all women, consequently), because it penalizes these people for using a weapon to defend themselves, while larger people are able to defend themselves, or commit assault/murder with their bare hands.

[beergood]

46. agreed

for now, prove me otherwise?

[beergood]

47. not you

just people who disagree.

[beergood]

50. thank you all

for your response. i enjoy reading and learning of your different opinions.