Belief in God(s) can encourage mental illness.
Exactly.
Teaching people to believe in things that there is no real evidence for is religious. It is also mental illness.
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Belief in God(s) can encourage mental illness.
I'm sorry, but you got any proof of that? Acknowledging gun technology would inevitably advance does not equal foreseeing machine-guns and rifles that can kill a man from a mile away.
When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun. But the average German? Could buy any gun they wanted. The only in place(which had been in place long, long long before the Nazis started running things and thus were simply laws that were there) were in regards to handguns, and even then getting a permit to own a pistol, if you were a German national, was trivial. In fact, if you were a member of the NSDAP(which had a membership of around eight million) you didn't need any sort of permit whatsoever.
As for Fascist Itly, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba...they didn't ban guns either. In the case of the Soviet Union & Russia, gunlaws had been in a state of flux for centuries, and Stalin was merely continuing the laws that had been in place since before he was born. Pol Pot didn't ban guns either, he banned Vietmanese weapons' traders, this despite the fact his own army was short on guns. Castro's Cuba? Only rifles were regulated. Handguns? Nope. Castro supported the right to bear arms. How do you think he won his revolution?
Got any more historical fallacies I can wreck for you?
Ahhhh, and here's the crux of the argument. "It's the ferriners' who're the problem, not us red-blooded white muricans!".
We heathens don't share any belief system, so we have no scripture.Well, atheists keep telling me that there is no prescription stapled to their lack of belief, or outright disbelief ion God(s).
But........ hey, I'll accept that sentence.
I've still found nothing about his religious beliefs on the internet.I picked up that Rook is an avowed atheist from a Brit newspaper in the local cafe, which was why I could not staple anything to my post.
But I don't think that anybody who murders folks in a church is a believer in the same God, anyway. Unless he wanted to get dished with a slice of hellfire, etc.
I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but it would seem to point towards the advantages of the right to bear arms,When the Nazis came into power they lowered the age which one could purchase a gun from 20 to 18 and removed ALL restrictions to the purchase & carry of long-guns and, as well as the ability to purchase any ammunition. Only Jews, criminals & other "Undesirable" groups in society couldn't own a gun.
I'm just saying the man who shot those people don't represent white people just because he is white, if he had black hair, that also doesn't represent black haired people, I think those of any race or colour who have anger towards any other race or colour will use that for an excuse to be violent towards the race or colour they don't dislike.So, you would agree that we shouldn't distort this incident to say something about atheism or atheists in general, correct?
You mean like in Warsaw, Leningrad, Serbia, Zamość, Greece and other places I'm undoubtedly forgetting?I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but it would seem to point towards the advantages of the right to bear arms,
ie, when the oppressors are armed, & the oppressed are disarmed, it will be shoot'n fish in a barrel.
That was a very well-constructed and astute response, I like it.![]()
I was thinking of Germany.You mean like in Warsaw, Leningrad, Serbia, Zamość, Greece and other places I'm undoubtedly forgetting?
So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?You see where I'm going with that? None of those events slowed the German advance for a single day. As awesome as Braveheart is, that's not how insurgency & resistance work.Those with successful uprisings are miniscule at best.
sigh. Someone needs to shatter a glass dildo in his ***. More "Lost Cause" and "The South was fighting for their rights" bull****.
Though in fairness he wasn't entirely wrong. The South *was* fighting for state's rights. Their right to enslave Negroes.
I was thinking of Germany.
Hitler wasn't really in charge of those other places.
So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?
I disagree.
And while the efficacy is in dispute, I'd rather die fighting than peacefully marching off to the gas chamber.
Tis a personal choice.
Yeah, I'm not the hard charging type.I'd rather provide an effective resistance than one which involves a mad charge into a hail of bullets....
Armed civilians have made the difference, no matter what he claims.I commonly find your approach to responding pretty thought-provoking, since you cut through a lot of the crap, and state your case simply. In this case, though, you're drawing a false parallel, in my opinion. Hesitate to speak for Nietzsche, but I don't see him as a pacifist, by any means.
No.Do you think gun control precludes resistance?
Not necessarily.Do you think gun control equates to pacifism in the face of oppression?
In Americastan, I take a constitutional originalilst view that what civilians had was what the framers envisioned,And finally, where do you draw the line on weapon control?
If you propose amending the Constitution amended to allow more than what I outlined above, then I'd have to ponder that at great length before answering.To what level should we allow more effective weapons to be in the hands of civilians in order to provide sufficient deterrent in case of oppression?
What would've changed, at all, if Jews had had (more*)weapons during the Kristallnacht?I was thinking of Germany.
Hitler wasn't really in charge of those other places.
Resistance movements made up almost entirely of poorly-trained & undisciplined civilians are futile, yes.So you would suggest that resistance in occupied countries is futile?
I disagree.
But that scenario isn't viable in an sense of the word. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany, Ustase Croatia or Iron-Guard Romania.And while the efficacy is in dispute, I'd rather die fighting than peacefully marching off to the gas chamber.
Tis a personal choice.
"During"?What would've changed, at all, if Jews had had (more*)weapons during the Kristallnacht?
I don't see how this has bearing on the subject at hand.*In a move of striking basic human decency, Jews who had been awarded the Iron Cross during WW1 were explicitly to be left alone, and in one documented case when Goering discovered someone had been put on a train to be relocated to a camp by going over the names of the 'list' of the people being moved, he found a WW1 veteran who had been decorated with the Iron Cross First Class in 1916, when he IIRC literally jumped on a grenade that the Brits had lobbed into their trench, somehow he survived he immediately demanded the train be stopped, the man be escorted to his home, and his posessions either returned or fairly compensated for.
It reminds me of a Henry Ford quote....something like....They didn't fight with guns because they didn't have them, they didn't fight with them because they KNEW that any engagement with a Wehrmacht battalion would utterly destroy them. The guns would've done nothing.
And yet, it made a difference in our revolution.Resistance movements made up almost entirely of poorly-trained & undisciplined civilians are futile, yes.
I just envision more possible scenarios than do you.But that scenario isn't viable in an sense of the word. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany, Ustase Croatia or Iron-Guard Romania.
Hah!Frankly our gunlaws are far too lax. But I also want to say that I do not at all want to ban guns. I own a Luger P08, model 1912. And it gets better. It's a custom, nickel-plated beauty, something I cherish above all else.
Yeah, I'm not the hard charging type.
Armed civilians have made the difference, no matter what he claims.
I'm not a pacifist.
I'm a non-aggressionist, & I favor a strong defense against aggressors from within & without.
I respect the right of others to be disarmed in the face of a threat, but I choose otherwise.
No.
But resistance can take many forms.
Being armed provides another one.
In Americastan, I take a constitutional originalilst view that what civilians had was what the framers envisioned,
ie, state of the art militarily capable small arms (not warships, petards, or cannons).
If you propose amending the Constitution amended to allow more than what I outlined above, then I'd have to ponder that at great length before answering.
I'm running out of steam.Weirdly, I reckon I might have been in my youth. But I'm not longer young. Phew!
Dunno. Between Nietzsche and myself, we have read a stupid amount of military history. I have no idea on your background in that sense, and am not saying you don't have a valid opinion. However the majority of effective ARMED resistance I can think of has been spearheaded by men with training. Be they old vets, militia soldiers, or remnants of broken army units. The Partisan movements across the Eastern front would be a simple example. Or for a different flavour, consider Vietnam.
I'm not really going too far back in this. Modern weaponry does kinda change the equation to a degree. Last hundred years, I guess?
Personally, for me it's not really a question about arms. It's a question about control. Somehow the second amendment seems to be read as 'unfettered right to bear arms' which I don't get at all, particularly when considering it in it's historical context.
Explosives would be a more effective way for a small group to effectively resist government or external oppression and occupation than many small arms. One of the issues I have with this debate is that effective means of defence against an oppressive government is exactly the same equipment as you require to effectively destabilize a democratically elected government. Talk of being able to 'defend democracy' or similar often doesn't seem to account for that simple fact.
Interesting. To be honest, I'd need to refresh my memory on some of the details. It's been a while since I've read much about the origins of the right to bear arms, and the devil is in the detail I think. Anyway, I get your point, and it makes sense (regardless of my agreement...lol)
It gets back to the detail, I guess. I am trying to recall two things, and off the top of my head I can't.
1) What was the intent in terms of the holders of arms. I thought it related more to the rights of private militias, since that was a means to raise an effective force, rather than simply farmers with guns. But of course, one doesn't preclude the other.
2) What was the intent in terms of strength of arms. Private militias were armed with heavier weapons that muskets, even if supply issues meant this was not common. So I'm unconvinced for now that the second amendment related to the farmers with guns scenario, whilst acknowledging that this is what much of the milita in fact was.
Bah. One of these days I'll start a proper second amendment thread, and stop derailing, but I fear (ironically) any examination of the second amendment and it's origins would be derailed.
I'm running out of steam.
But we're not so far apart.
And yes, weaponry is changing in a fundamental way with respect to the 2nd Amendment.
We've interesting times ahead.
Aye!Fair enough. I've derailed enough anyway.
In terms of the OP, I'd have been more than happy if someone could have shot this racist before he managed to murder a bunch of innocents. Pretty sure we agree on that.
![]()
It's been so done here, but perhaps it will seem fresh & enticing again some day.(You ever wanna do the second amendment dance, let me know)
Not 1 camp liberated by its inmates.in stead preferring to watfprf they had to be rescued by Soviets, Frenchmen,"During"?
That wouldn't have been the most opportune moment.
I'd say that being sent to the camps was a decisive point where armed resistance was clearly a worthy path
That was 110% my fault I gave an extremely hard time regarding my passion for history & the like.II don't see how this has bearing on the subject at hand.
Probably. But how would you feel about itt reminds me of a Henry Ford quote....something like....
"Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right."
The ones who died in concentration camps would've at least taken some Nazis with them had they violently resisted
Name one. Name a situation that was improved or remedied by having a "good guy with a gun. Not a Cop, not an ex-Soldier. Just Joe Schmoe.I just envision more possible scenarios than do you.
In some, guns in private hands are useful.
Armed resistance is fraught with risk & tragedy.Not 1 camp liberated by its inmates.in stead preferring to watfprf they had to be rescued by Soviets, Frenchmen,
That was 110% my fault I gave an extremely hard time regarding my passion for history & the like.
You do know I was mocking the CSA right? Yes, it was fighting for state's rights...the right to brown people as farm equipment.,This meme dies very hard.
Correct.And labeling every other attack as "terrorist" leads to a lack of distinction between what is actually a terrorist attack and what is not.