AS179: Tommentary: 2nd Amendment Needs To Go; Blaming Atheism for Atheist Killers

Yeah I decided to just try to pack it all into the title….

Here’s a link to an article I discuss:

Is atheism at all culpable for atheist shooters? If we say no, are we being hypocritical when we blame Islam for terrorism? I think I have a pretty good answer. Also, politicizing tragedies is another topic I cover.

7 thoughts on “AS179: Tommentary: 2nd Amendment Needs To Go; Blaming Atheism for Atheist Killers”

  1. I tuned out Ashley’s insane piece when she said “If it’s unreasonable for the pope to hide rapists, why do we accept it from our organizations? If it’s unreasonable for the Catholic Church to trivialize child molestation, why do we accept it from our supposed leaders?” What “leaders”, and which ones are the rapists, and who’s trivialized child molestation? Now on to the Tommentary.

    1. Excellent critique Thomas, you’re spot on, as the Brits say. For once I don’t think I have anything to add, you said it all. Except to say it’s a shame FTB (a site I used to read, and respect) doesn’t have a voice of reason, such as yourself, on staff. I suspect if you were however, you’d be driven off in short order.

  2. Thank you for acknowledging the existence of the first half of the whole sentence that constitutes the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” Most people on both sides of the gun issue just pretend that that’s not even there.

    My solution to the “unlimited guns in the hands of random whack-jobs” problem would be to take the first half of the sentence to be as important as the last half (the Framers did) and link gun ownership to a “well REGULATED militia.” To join the “militia,” though, and thus have the right to keep and bear arms, one would need to undergo training and evaluation very similar to that required to join a police force or the military. Militia training/screening would consist of (but maybe not be limited to):

    1) Firearms training with a heavy emphasis on firearms safety.

    2) A thorough psychological evaluation and a complete review of one’s medical history (including mental illness).

    3) A rather extensive background check (criminal record, etc.).

    4) Tactical training, often referred to shoot/don’t-shoot scenario training, wherein the trainee is taught how to evaluate a situation for the need and potential effectiveness of deadly force, considering bystander safety and possibly effective alternatives.

    5) Range qualification where the trainee must prove a level of proficiency with their weapon and the ability to handle and fire it without endangering themselves or bystanders.

    6) Periodic re-qualification (every two years or so, so if you develop severe paranoid delusions or a bad tremor in your shootin’ arm, you’re not grandfathered in for the rest of your life).

    Such a course might be taught evenings and weekends and last several months. When someone passed such a course, they would be qualified to own and carry a particular size and type of weapon. To own a different type of weapon, they would have to train and qualify on that type, like pilots do (someone who can fly a single engine prop plane is not automatically qualified to operate a multi-engine jet).

    Those serious about owning guns for hunting or self defense would not be prevented from doing so, but they would have to prove a certain level of maturity and responsibility. I’ll bet that such requirements would weed out 99% of those who commit the horrific mass murders we’ve experienced in the US.

    What part of WELL REGULATED don’t we understand?

  3. For those who are curious I’m a Canadian gun owner so I can tell you how it works up here, To buy a gun you need a PAL (possession and acquisition licence) unless you want to buy a handgun then you need a restricted PAL. It’s essentially the same process to get either PAL just with an extra test and fee for the restricted and a mandatory training course. Most people take a course when getting their PAL I didn’t because I’d already taken a hunter safety course when I was younger and have been around guns since I was young. The test is a written multiple choice and then a long form question and answer either done on paper or orally. After you past the test your application is sent off to the RCMP to do a criminal and mental health background check, they also check with 2 references you provide. If you’re married or divorced your wife or ex-wife has to be one of your references. If everything checks out you get your PAL. Once you have your PAL you can stroll into any gun store and by any non-restricted firearm or if you spent the extra time restricted firearm you want. Very few people bother with the restricted firearm PAL because they are so annoying to own, they must be kept locked in a safe with a trigger lock separate from the ammunition, you can only transport them in a lockbox to and from a firing range or your own property and can only be used for target shooting. I currently own 3 rifles and 2 shotguns most people I know don’t own any and have never fired a gun even though I live on the prairies, one of the areas with the most hunters and gun owners per capita in Canada.

    1. Sounds like a MUCH better system than the US currently has.

      I’ve had range safety training four times in my life: from my dad when I was five. from the Boy Scouts when I was twelve, from ROTC when I was eighteen and with the US Marshals Service in my thirties. I am extremely respectful of and careful with firearms, but most of the people I know are very cavalier with them waving them around indiscriminately like Wyatt Earp or Rambo when they are outside of a public or professional context. And this behavior is not without consequences. My best friend in middle school had a big chunk blown out of his left calf with an unloaded deer rifle on a hunting trip. It took a year and four operations to put his leg back together. Three of my most macho buddies have shot holes in their living room walls or ceilings with unloaded hand guns while cleaning and servicing them and a forth took the .45 automatic he had given his wife for protection away after she blew a hole in the kitchen floor with it, concluding that she was safer without it. And to top it off, my boss’s nephew was shot in the chest and killed dead with another unloaded deer rifle. My dad always told me to be EXTREMELY careful of unloaded guns. They’re the most dangerous kind. Nearly every time someone is killed or wounded accidentally it is with an unloaded gun.

      So, training is a big part of it and not handing guns out to whack-a-doodles like lollipops is the other part. Go Canada!

      1. I remember my first experience with guns, my grandfather was teaching me and my brother to fire the 22 I think I was 10. The two things he drilled into us were, always treat a gun as if it were loaded and never point it at anything you don’t want to die. Another difference I notice between American and Canadian gun owners is that no one I know who owns a gun expects to ever use it in self defense, all of our safety courses and training assume that the only thing you’ll be doing with your gun is hunting and target shooting. The safe storage rules practically preclude using your gun that way anyhow, I’d need a 5-10 minute heads up if I needed to get into a gunfight with anyone.

  4. Is atheism at all culpable for atheist shooters?
    No. It can’t be. Atheism has no directives at all.

    If we say no, are we being hypocritical when we blame Islam for terrorism?
    No. Islam has many directives.

Leave a Reply