you do realise the point here is that this happens every week in a place with some of strongest gun laws in the states

i remember chicago being called a gun free zone in the past, not so gun free it seems

imagine getting that unhinged over an internet argument. you clearly aren't well, buddy. please seek psychological help, i'm being serious. i don't even want to imagine what someone with your kind of anger management issues would do on a bad day with all the guns you allegedly have.

regarding your lie: you didn't. you made some baseless, science defying claims, that lack any kind of principle or coherent logic (again, especially considering your whole "small government" / "freedom" shtick), and hilariously pretended that any halfway intelligent person, not guided by some religiously inspired misunderstanding of basic concepts, could realistically arrive at those conclusions. you're not making any sense.

the only explanation for your radical anti-choice stance, even willing to send your own daughter to jail if she didn't want to have a rapist's baby, is some weird religiously inspired motivation - and even then it directly contradicts your whole "pro-gun, no matter how many children, women, unarmed citizens... are killed" stance. clearly you don't value the life of ACTUAL children above all else.

Your regular everyday discourse is just SOOOO much better, amirite?

I'm super not responsible for your interpretations of my motivations. You're just lying to yourself, and just like Ivan, I won't sit here and humor the lies. So go fuck yourself.

divine right doesn't mean inherently religious specificity.

all religions that i'm aware of justify self defense morally, therefore in a landscape of rampant firearm ownership gun ownership for the purposes of self defense can be a divine right. that being a right who's justification is beyond the judgement of man, but not necessarily subject to the word of a specific god.

that was the original justification for the divine right of kings, that being beyond the say-so of nobles or even the subject the king oversaw. really even an atheist could claim the divine right, either for firearms or perhaps for abortion. her body, her choice. the ability to control reproductive health should be beyond the legislative power of others, ironically here to avoid religious justifications for banning it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 31 2022 01:37pm

oh i know what gun nuts and nra propaganda want to suggest with that narrative, and i'm obviously not surprised to see you mindlessly regurgitate it, but it ignores a couple of basic realities:

- all crime would be significantly less lethal without the ocean of guns america is drowning in
- gun laws DO actually work, you people simply aren't honest enough to look at actual studies and try to argue with out of context anecdotes



https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article261831775.html

This post was edited by fender on May 31 2022 01:38pm

huh? who said anything about a SPECIFIC god? i said "religious" not "christian". the taliban have a very similar approach to women's rights and guns. this is by no means an exclusively christian issue. in america it might be predominantly, but i'm well aware that other religious zealots agree.

You're not taking my FGM-148 Javelin.
I love this thing.

as i said imo an atheist could claim a divine right, that being a right that is beyond the judgement or hampering of man.

are atheists religious too?

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 31 2022 01:48pm

first of all, santara explicitly confirmed he was religious - so all the hypotheticals as to what an atheist could or would reasonably claim aside, it's not even just a reasonable and logical conclusion from his take on owning guns being a "divine right", it's a black on white, positive statement by him: he's not an atheist, he's religious, even though he doesn't think much of the church.

back to your 'question': what "divine right" actually means is a right directly from GOD (hence the name: "divine"). why would an atheist ever claim that? i mean, of course it's theoretically possible, but it either implies they simply don't know what it means, or maybe they aren't an actual atheist?

your 'definition' sounds more like what we call "inalienable rights". no religion or god necessary there.

in this context given that the bible doesn't explicitly give rights to own guns, because guns weren't invented, applying "divine rights" to gun ownership would be analogous to "inalienable rights".

as i said, the divine right is that of self defense, and in a land such as the united states where guns are prevalent, self defense can require a firearm.

i understand this well, having drawn a weapon to defend my home against criminals, luckily without having to shoot.

my point, to be specific, is that you're attributing the desire for self defense to ONLY being justifiable by religion. that's your claim. you're using the usage of "divine right" as evidence for that claim. but of course it's not at all solely a religious belief that gun ownership for self defense is an inalienable right in a landscape of common gun ownership. Skinned is an atheist who thought that for a long time, and disarmed himself because he feared what he would do, not because his stance on guns changed generally, iirc.