ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

Atheism, Communism, and Gun Control: The History of Governments that Slaughter Their Own Citizens

Updated on July 19, 2016

Atheism And Gun Control

Throughout history the facts can not be disputed, when governments combine atheism and the restriction of firearms amongst the citizens, the results have always been massacre of citizens at levels so astonishing that only the most profoundly ignorant minds ever try to reason their way around it.

Atheism is one thing, bans on firearms are quite another thing, but when atheism is a government's meme, firearm bans and massacres of citizens always follow. The notion that humanity is no more than a glorified beast is a devaluation of life already, so there is no need to ever wonder why it is that an atheist government would soon deny it's citizens their natural born rights to self defense, even less cause to wonder why an atheist government would murder tens of millions of it's citizens that it deems undesirable.

Any atheist can choose to be offended by facts, but the facts remain.

Atheist governments + gun bans = slaughter of the governed.

Josef Stalin - One Of History's Most Prolific Murderer, An Atheist That Endorsed Gun Control.
Josef Stalin - One Of History's Most Prolific Murderer, An Atheist That Endorsed Gun Control. | Source

Josef Stalin

Now folks can talk about Hitler all they like, the facts show that far and away Stalin was at least twice the killer that Hitler was. Stalin murdered more of his own people than Hitler murdered Jews, or other persons the Nazis thought undesirable. When it comes to killing people, you just can't beat this proud proponent of atheism, unless you look into China, and you can't wiggle your way around it at all either, but go ahead and try.

The atheist communist enacted laws as soon as they took power to force gun registration so they could then confiscate the weapons, rendering all political opponents helpless, defenceless, and later, dead.

When Stalin took power paranoia ruled the Soviet empire, and no one suffered more than the independence seeking persons of the Ukraine, the bread basket of Europe. Stalin, of course, took everything they had, and murdered around twenty million in the Ukraine alone via forced death labor, starvation, and firing squads, they had nothing to defend themselves with.

The best estimates concerning the total number of persons murdered by order of Stalin is around forty million unarmed souls, the communist had been trained that mankind were no more than glorified apes, and the state more important than the lives of huge numbers of individuals.

Stalin and Gun Control

Mao Tse-Tung

Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist, Gun Control Advocate, Mass Murderer
Mao Tse-Tung, Atheist, Gun Control Advocate, Mass Murderer | Source

Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

There are no precise figures for how many murders Mao Tse-Tung is directly responsible for through forced confiscation of food during the Great Leap Forward, but the atheist communist starved to death at least twenty million persons by refusing to change his inhuman policies, perhaps the starvation was, in fact, his plan, but that is merely starvation, when the barrel of a gun is your source of power, and all opposition disarmed, the absolute power corrupt absolutely.

While most scholars are reluctant to estimate a total number of “unnatural deaths” in China under Mao, evidence shows he was in some way responsible for at least 40 million deaths and perhaps 80 million or more. This includes deaths he was directly responsible for and deaths resulting from disastrous policies he refused to change.
One government document that has been internally circulated and seen by a former Communist Party official now at Princeton University says that 80 million died unnatural deaths – most of them in the famine following the Great Leap Forward. This figure comes from the Tigaisuo, or the System Reform Institute, which was led by Zhao Ziyang, the deposed Communist Party chief, in the 1980s to study how to reform Chinese society.

During the Great Leap Forward, Chairman Mao. dictator of China, literally took away the names of poor farmers, replacing their names with numbers. Atheist in power have the not so strange propensity to consider themselves as "god," and the rest as mere beast, or slave. The notion of God isn't something the human mind can rid itself of, it can only attempt to replace it with something else, and an atheist in power always replaces God with self. For this reason voting or supporting an atheist in politics is the single most delusional thing a human being can do.

When the famine years of the Great Leap Forward hit China, the atheist Mao had tons of grain stored in warehouses, but the people were disarmed and subservient to their god, a murderous dictator. Millions starved with no name, but a number, they were only mere beasts to their dictator god, and graves were robbed at night, the people had to eat something.

Pol Pot

Atheist Gun Control Advocate Pol Pot, And Some Of His "Results."
Atheist Gun Control Advocate Pol Pot, And Some Of His "Results."

Atheist Pol Pot was a big fan of Mao Tse-Tung, and like Mao, he probably thought himself a god. Regardless of what Pol Pot thought of himself, he definitely considered the people in his nation as mere beasts, and with denial of higher authority or accountability, he confiscated their weapons as soon as he took power, and set about to murder around twenty one percent of Cambodia's population.

During his time in power he imposed agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects. The combined effects of forced labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21% of the Cambodian population. In all, an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died as a result of the policies of his three-year premiership. Not bad for an atheist leader, he destroyed a higher percentage of his godless population than either Stalin or Mao in his Killing Fields.

The Killing Fields Of Cambodia - Atheism And Gun Control Don't Mix Well, Unless You Are Fond Of Mass Murder.

Conclusion: Atheism + Gun Control = Mass Murder

All of the most numerous slaughters of innocent poor persons of the past one hundred years involved a single lethal combination, an atheist government that devalued the lives of human beings, and the confiscation of the governed people's firearms. The logic is singular and beyond simple, confiscation of firearms leaves a populace open for late night knocks on the door, or doors simply kicked in, and slaughter.

It is a fool that places faith in government while not being able to trust their very own neighbour with weapons, such cognitive dissonance led to the killings of millions in the former Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia at the hands of atheist governments where absolute power at the barrel's end of a gun never failed to corrupt absolutely. There is no historical evidence that an atheist government can combine it's displacement of God with gun control, and then treat the governed with anything but slaughter and starvation, and suffice it to say, there never will be.

Never support gun control, and never vote for an atheist politician unless he or she has proved beyond all doubt to be the staunchest supporter of firearms imaginable, doing so is an irreverent act of historical blindness, or a willing support of mass murder. Those ignorant of history are doomed to see it repeated, but those who know history and ignore it are friends of slaughter.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Joseph G Caldwell profile image

      Joseph G Caldwell 4 years ago from southwest Pennsylvania

      Good historical lessons on the horrible dictators listed. It's important also imo to see how important guns are as a wedge issue in the U.S., particularly to get non-wealthy whites and evangelicals stirred up against the "liberal elites who want to take your guns away", so that republicans can win elections with rich trickle-downers on taxes/economics and non-wealthy folks in the red states. The path to solififying corporate tyranny in the past 30 years is to get the white working class and Bible belters fired up about God, guns, gays, abortion so they vote for a Bush or a Romney. The trickle-down economics only gets so many votes.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Well I'm certainly not anti gay or pro Republican. I've lost all hope in the validity of the two party thing with Obama...who is pro gun control...except when it comes to selling them to drug cartels, or so it seems :/

    • Theeyeballkid profile image

      Theeyeballkid 4 years ago

      Great hub Wesman, no words wasted on this one. Yes you are completely correct in what you have stated, Atheism and Socialism are a dangerous combination. But you'd better strap your tin hat on, I suspect you've stirring up a hornets’ nest with this one. Atheists love to squawk about how many wars have been started on religious grounds, but will not hear about the atrocities carried out by these Atheist monsters.

      All the best Sir!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Thanks Theeyeballkid!!! Twas aimed directly at that target!

    • QualityContent profile image

      QualityContent 4 years ago

      Guns don't get up and shoot people on their own.

      "guns don't kill people" Only people kill people.

      Without a way to defend yourself, you have given up your freedom.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      QualityContent, I absolutely agree, its why I'll never again watch "The Young Turks" news show.

    • MikeNV profile image

      MikeNV 4 years ago from Henderson, NV

      There are more guns in the United States than People. And there are Billions and Billions of rounds of ammunition for those guns.

      When martial law is declared it won't take too long for the Military Personal to go AWOL and defend their families. This is the true CHECK on Government trying to take over the United States.

      Obama has already given himself the authority to arrest you without charge and hold you indefinitely. He has also given himself the authority to take over the countries food supply, take everything from Farmers, Grocery Stores, etc. He can also shut down the Internet at a moments notice.

      Why would he need the authority to do all these things if they were not planning for Martial Law?

      The guise is that it is for Homeland Security. But if it were for our own security why then would they not actually shut down the borders?

      Guns are the only thing that is keeping the Federal Government from collapsing the Currency on behalf of their Banker Owners and declaring Martial Law now.

      When you look at the National Debt you should be asking yourself who do we owe this money to? China is a very small percentage. Most of it is owed to the Federal Reserve who did nothing more than print it then sell it to the US Government at interest.

      The entire system is designed to keep the people from every acquiring any real wealth, while a select few do NOT work and control all the wealth.

      There is not going to be a recovery this time around because it's not mathematically possible.

      When you loan a dollar into existence then attach an interest rate to that dollar the money to repay the interest on the debt does not exist so you have to create more.

      People do not really have any idea how the "system" works, so they gravitate towards one party or the other and those parties are used to keep people in a perpetual state of distraction. The only real issue that is in need of fixing is the Money Supply and the Corrupt people who control it. Remove that and then everything would work itself out.

      Guns are here to stay.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Wesman...Once again, you have enriched my education and given me some facts I may have known, but haven't kept in mind. I clearly remember my Dad and his father telling of the precise facts you mention of Stalin. My Dad is 100% Ukranian-(1st. generation American,) although my grandparents fled to Austria at a very young age with their families....before emigrating to America.

      I remember being so young and in awe and frightened, as well, when I would hear my grandfather discuss Stalin.

      I freely admit I am not for gun-control in the least.

      A superb hub as always, my friend. UP +++

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 4 years ago

      People who favor gun control are not always heard. I do not want to prevent anyone, except convicted felons, people with mental illnesses and people awaiting trial on criminal cases to have guns. Everyone else can have one. I am opposed to allowing college students carrying concealed weapons on campus. If there is a college shooting, these weekend warriors will be the first to be shot. I want to be able to tell a person who enters my property to leave if he has a gun, unless he is an officer of the law.

      I want people to have to take a course in gun safety and a course in gun use--let them fire the gun a few times before they take it home. I want to stop the sale of guns over the internet. GO to a gun shop and buy it in person. Have your name and the serial number of the gun registered. If you lose the gun or of it is stolen, you must be required to report that to the authorities.

      I do not think any of the restrictions I seek in any reasonable way are in conflict with the right to bear arms. Originally, owning a gun was linked to the need for a well regulated militia. The court conveniently eliminated that restriction. The states can pass laws. Also, as I said in another Hub, the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to shoot that gun, if you stick to a literal interpretation of the constitution. Agreed, the obvious reading would say you could bear and fire your guns, but it does not specifically say that. Therefore, I believe there is some room for some reasonable restrictions. Again, I am not trying to ban guns, as someone will claim. I want to see guns in the hands of safe, law-abiding and trained people who have the maturity and common sense about the destructive power of guns.

      My wife was a teacher for 29 years. A few years ago one of her students were killed when a bullet fell from the sky. Someone had shot his gun into the air to celebrate the Fourth of July. He had no regard as to where that bullet might fall. The child died. The gunman was never found. Now someone please tell me how such a thing is protected by the Constitution.

    • dwachira profile image

      [ Danson Wachira ] 4 years ago from Nairobi, Kenya

      This hub is a mirror of what is happening today right in our society. Innocent hardworking citizens get shot daily from stray bullets and mistaken identities resulting to unnatural deaths. Corrupted governance policies that do not protect the people they were ment to. Someone tell me how is that different from the murders of Mao Tse, Pol Pot and the rest. I come from Africa and i don't need to describe how militia type of governments operates here, the Cambodia way only this time they look neo. Thanks Wesman.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Larry sez: People who favor gun control are not always heard.

      Jack replies: Yes, because the media is so strongly on the side of gun ownership it just cuts you guys out.

      Larry sez: I do not want to prevent anyone, except convicted felons, people with mental illnesses and people awaiting trial on criminal cases to have guns.

      Jack replies: You do know, don’t you, that it is already illegal for felons and people with adjudicated mental illnesses to own guns. I guess we can make it doubly-illegal to satisfy your desires. And why should innocent people be forbidden from owning guns? Should people “awaiting trial” also be forbidden from reading a newspaper, or going to church?

      Larry sez: Everyone else can have one. I am opposed to allowing college students carrying concealed weapons on campus.

      Jack replies: Many anti-gunners will contradict themselves over the course of a thread but it takes special talent to contradict oneself in two consecutive sentences.

      Larry sez: If there is a college shooting, these weekend warriors will be the first to be shot.

      Jack replies: Any evidence? No… of course not.

      And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like Larry, who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?

      While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

      Larry sez: I want to be able to tell a person who enters my property to leave if he has a gun, unless he is an officer of the law.

      Jack replies: There is no state law in any state that requires you to allow people with guns onto your private property. If you ask them to leave and they don’t it is simple trespass.

      Larry sez: I want people to have to take a course in gun safety and a course in gun use--let them fire the gun a few times before they take it home.

      Jack replies: About 40,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.. About 200 gun accidents each year. Larry therefore wants the 39,999,800 gun owners who didn’t have accidents to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours taking “gun safety” courses that are not needed, and will accomplish nothing. This is the logic of those who know little about firearms and firearm owners. It is the best they can do.

      Larry sez: I want to stop the sale of guns over the internet. GO to a gun shop and buy it in person.

      Jack replies: You know, I've never had a desire to go onto a knitting hub and explain to the knitters about their hobby. That's because I know absolutely nothing about knitting.

      I've never had a desire to go onto a fishing hub and explain to the fishermen about their hobby. That's because I know absolutely nothing about fishing.

      I've never had a desire to go onto a lacrosse hub and explain to the lacrosse players about their hobby. That's because I know absolutely nothing about lacrosse.

      Yet we have people who know absolutely nothing about firearms, and the firearm community come on hubs and try to explain, in their ignorance, about guns and people.

      Federal law requires ALL purchases of guns interstate be done through a “gun shop.” If Fred who lives in Georgia sees a gun advertised over the internet by a person in Colorado the ONLY way Fred can legally buy that gun is if the owner in Colorado ships it to a gun shop in Georgia, where Fred has to go through all the laws that are in place to buy any other gun.

      The exception to that is if Fred and the gun owner live in the same state such as Indiana where sales between private individuals are not regulated. In that case, it doesn’t make a difference if Fred finds out the gun is for sale from a newspaper ad, the internet, a garage sale, or a note tacked on the restroom wall in McDonalds.

      Larry doesn’t know this… but Larry comments on it anyway.

      Larry sez: Have your name and the serial number of the gun registered.

      Jack replies: Larry cannot give one reason why this will stop any crime, any place, by any person, from happening. But it makes him feel good.

      Larry sez: If you lose the gun or of it is stolen, you must be required to report that to the authorities.

      Jack replies: Most people do so. Mandating a “time” frame for it just criminalizes the victim of the crime where his gun was stolen.

      Larry sez: I do not think any of the restrictions I seek in any reasonable way are in conflict with the right to bear arms.

      Jack replies: Hmmmm…. 1) training that is not necessary for any reason. 2) Mandating a “cost” for training before exercising a right 3) preventing people who may need to defend themselves from bearing arms 4) Registration to exercise a right

      Larry sez: Originally, owning a gun was linked to the need for a well regulated militia. The court conveniently eliminated that restriction.

      Jack replies:

      Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights

      DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:

      • U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.

      • Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);

      • State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);

      • Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");

      • State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly);

      • Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) (upheld an enhanced penalty for manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the government);

      • In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);

      • State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) (upheld a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);

      • State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) (striking down a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second Amendment and Montana Const. guarantee).

      • U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that "an individual's right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).").

      DECISIONS THAT RECOGNIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, BUT ONLY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY:

      • U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen);

      • State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of various concealable arms);

      • State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).

      DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ARGUED OR RAISED AS A LIMITATION ON STATE LAWS, AND IN WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT IT ONLY LIMITED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT

    • christopheranton profile image

      Christopher Antony Meade 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      Thanks Wesman for a very interesting and well-argued article. There are a few things I would like to take issue with you on. The first one would be your conclusion that atheism+ gun control= mass murder. Do you not think it would be fairer to say evil or fanaticism lead there instead. I've no problem with saying that Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot were all evil mass murderers. I think it's just coincidence though that they were atheists. There have been plenty of mass murderers in history who believed in God and who even killed thousands in the name of God. I can mention Oliver Cromwell for one. This religious fanatic was responsible for the deaths of 600,000 of my ancestors in Ireland. He was no atheist, just a seriously evil bastard. The Japanese aggressors in World War II were all very religious people. So also were the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. They were actually Buddhists. They committed great atrocities against the Tamils on that troubled island. This was happening up until about two years ago. The Bosnian Serb commanders who were responsible for murdering thousands in the 1990s were principally devout Greek Orthodox. The IRA, who blew up or shot thousands, were mainly Catholics. One final one, I would like to mention, is your former president Andrew Jackson and his Indian Removal Act. I don't know what that man’s religious beliefs were. I'm guessing he wasn't an atheist though. Ask any Native American. I bet they consider him to have been a mass murderer.

      I can't say much on the issue of gun control. But I would ask you to compare the figures for murder in the United States with the figures here in Britain. We have strict gun control in this country.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Let's try it again...

      Larry sez: Originally, owning a gun was linked to the need for a well regulated militia. The court conveniently eliminated that restriction.

      Jack replies:

      Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights

      DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:

      • U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.

      • Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);

      • State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);

      • Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");

      • State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly);

      • Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) (upheld an enhanced penalty for manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the government);

      • In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);

      • State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) (upheld a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);

      • State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) (striking down a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second Amendment and Montana Const. guarantee).

      • U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that "an individual's right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).").

      DECISIONS THAT RECOGNIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, BUT ONLY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY:

      • U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen);

      • State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of various concealable arms);

      • State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).

      DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ARGUED OR RAISED AS A LIMITATION ON STATE LAWS, AND IN WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT IT ONLY LIMITED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE RIGHT WAS INDIVIDUAL IN NATURE:

      • Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871);

      • Fife v. Sta the, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472, 473, 474 (1874);

      • Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the streets);

      • People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).

      DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS IMPLIED TO GUARANTEE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, THOUGH UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT LIMITED ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATES AS WELL, BECAUSE THE TYPE OF ARM IN QUESTION WASN'T PROTECTED:

      • English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872)

      • State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles);

      • People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in the Second Amendment was individual);

      • Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that "concealable hand weapons" were protected by the Second Amendment, but acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).

      DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLASSED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WITH NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:

      • Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).

      And, of course… here’s a story from that notoriously famous "pro gun and pro conservative" newspaper, the New York Times which quotes that fashionable lawyer so loved by liberals across the nation, Lawrence Tribe…

      "Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right."

      "My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise," Professor Tribe said. "I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."

      The whole article is certainly well worth reading… especially for those confused over just what the 2nd Amendment really means.

      Larry sez: The states can pass laws. Also, as I said in another Hub, the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to shoot that gun, if you stick to a literal interpretation of the constitution. Agreed, the obvious reading would say you could bear and fire your guns, but it does not specifically say that.

      Jack replies: Dear Readers, this is as silly as if Larry was trying to argue that the 1stA gave you the right to buy a book but not to read it. Or to belong to a church but not be allowed to go there. This really is the best he can do.

      Larry sez: Therefore, I believe there is some room for some reasonable restrictions. Again, I am not trying to ban guns, as someone will claim.

      Jack replies: Larry has not given us any reasonable restrictions yet that will keep a bad person from doing a bad thing. Every single one of his “reasonable” restrictions only has an effect on the law abiding citizen.

      Larry sez: I want to see guns in the hands of safe, law-abiding and trained people who have the maturity and common sense about the destructive power of guns.

      Jack replies: Then you are quite happy with the 39,900,000 citizens who own guns and never do a bit of harm to anyone with them?

      Larry sez: My wife was a teacher for 29 years. A few years ago one of her students were killed when a bullet fell from the sky. Someone had shot his gun into the air to celebrate the Fourth of July. He had no regard as to where that bullet might fall. The child died. The gunman was never found. Now someone please tell me how such a thing is protected by the Constitution.

      Jack replies: I wasn’t aware that either stupidity, or murder, are protected by the Constitution.

      BTW, since we are swapping horror stories, a few weeks back in my local school district a teacher was convicted of molesting several young children in her care. She had no regard to how that would harm the children. Now please tell me how such a thing is protected by the contract the teachers sign with the school district.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 4 years ago

      Well Jack, since you seem to know so much about me, let me clear up a few points.

      Larry sez: People who favor gun control are not always heard.

      Jack replies: Yes, because the media is so strongly on the side of gun ownership it just cuts you guys out.

      I was a newspaper reporter for 16 years, small market, where people like to fish and hunt. I took a lot of pictures of the deer people had bagged and other similar pictures. I also wrote a lot of stories about accidental deaths of children who were "playing" with a gun they found in the house that they thought was not loaded. The people of the community where I worked heard about that.

      Larry sez: I do not want to prevent anyone, except convicted felons, people with mental illnesses and people awaiting trial on criminal cases to have guns.

      Jack replies: You do know, don’t you, that it is already illegal for felons and people with adjudicated mental illnesses to own guns. I guess we can make it doubly-illegal to satisfy your desires. And why should innocent people be forbidden from owning guns? Should people “awaiting trial” also be forbidden from reading a newspaper, or going to church?

      People awaiting trial: that is a good one. We had a serial killer in Baton Rouge where I lived a few years ago. He was arrested without bond. Should he be allowed to order a gun to be delivered to the prison. There are people who are charged with negligent homicide and are released on bond--no I do not think they should have the right to buy guns. There bond agreement may say they cannot own one, but that does not stop them from buying them over the internet. Congress can control interstate commerce. It could prevent the interstate sale via the internet of weapons, ammunition and other dangerous items.

      Larry sez: Everyone else can have one. I am opposed to allowing college students carrying concealed weapons on campus.

      Jack replies: Many anti-gunners will contradict themselves over the course of a thread but it takes special talent to contradict oneself in two consecutive sentences.

      I did not contradict myself. A college student can own a gun. He just should not be allowed to bring it on campus and it should not be allowed as a concealed weapon. If he has a gun in his car and he parks his car off campus, that is his right--I may not like it, but I accept it. I believe it is the right of the government to provide a safe atmosphere for learning. I do not know if and when you went to college--when I was a freshman, I knew a lot of people in fraternities--I did not belong to one. Many of them consumed a little too much liquor at the fraternity houses. Who was going to be there to take away their keys, or stop them from taking a gun to a fight because somebody looked at them the wrong way. Maturity has a lot to do with gun ownership.

      Larry sez: If there is a college shooting, these weekend warriors will be the first to be shot.

      Jack replies: Any evidence? No… of course not.

      You are right, because fortunately we have not yet been faced with that situation. That was an admitted assumption on my part. However, if a person in combat gear holding a rifle walks into a classroom, I would be willing to bet a few people would be killed and the and among the first would be the ones fumbling for the concealed weapon in their book bag. Unfortunately, I am sure one day we will find out which of us is right about that.

      And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like Larry, who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?

      While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

      OK on this you may some inaccurate statements. I know how to shoot a gun. I had an uncle who lived with us when I was a child and taught me the basics. I am no marksman. He was using a revolver. My knowledge of automatic and semi-automaic weapons is less. My father had a hunting shotgun at his parents hours. When we were visiting there, he let me shoot it a couple of times, so I could see what kind of kick it had. As a newspaper reporter, I covered the police beat. I had a lot of discussions with officers about guns--just interested why a cop would carry a chrome plated gun that the bad guy could see in the dark. No I cannot identify from bullet from another--could tell the difference between a 22 and a 45 but no I am not an expert, but I am not ignorant. I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of some of the pepople who have access to guns. Also all people who own guns do not the "years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work." If you fall into that category, I really have no problem with you having a gun. If the person you identified as me as not knowing one end of the gun from the other ... then I have a problem with him having a gun.

      Larry sez: I want to be able to tell a person who enters my property to leave if he has a gun, unless he is an officer of the law.

      Jack replies: There is no state law in any state that requires you to allow people with guns onto your private property. If you ask them to leave and they don’t it is simple trespass.

      On the above statement you are wrong. In Louisiana, with the backing of the NRA, a person who runs a business out of their home, such as a woman who cuts hair, or the guy who fixes lawnmowers in his back yard, or the person who does a little bookkeeping work out of their home, cannot tell a customer to go put the gun in their car. They can tell the customer to leave and lose the business, but they cannot stop the customer from bringing the gun into the house. The same law has been enacted in other states. People who own guns are also allowed them bring them to chemical plans. I was a representative for the oil and gas industry. Guns and refineries do not mix. We did manage to get that law amended to require that the guns be left in the vehicle, that they be unloaded, have gun locks, ammunition in another secured place in the vehicle and the vehicle parked in a separate parking lot that was locked during the normal workday. The people with guns had to advise the company that they had guns in their vehicles-in case one got stolen. It allowed the company to advise the police that there may be a gun in the vehicle.

      Larry sez: I want people to have to take a course in gun safety and a course in gun use--let them fire the gun a few times before they take it home.

      Jack replies: About 40,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.. About 200 gun accidents each year. Larry therefore wants the 39,999,800 gun owners who didn’t have accidents to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours taking “gun safety” courses that are not needed, and will accomplish nothing. This is the logic of those who know little about firearms and firearm owners. It is the best they can do.

      Every person who buys a gun does not start out with the same level of experience you have. I do not have that level of experience, yet I can buy the same guns you can buy, even though a particular pistol or rifle may be well beyond my capability. There use to be public service announcements on televisions about hunters--how to carry your weapon, how to maintain it, making sure of your target, etc. I do not think that is asking too much. If you are out hunting, and you shoot an animal that you did not realize was on posted land and the animal is not dead. I am sure you cross the fence and finish the kill. I do not know if you tell the owner. That is my concern. My concern is do you put your gun on the ground or have somebody hold it while you cross the fence, or do you try to hold on to the gun and go t

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 4 years ago

      Wessman Todd Shaw

      We keep people like Stalin and others out of power at the voting booth. If the army turns on the citizens, there are not going to be enough guns to protect you.

      I want repeat what I said in my previous response, but I noticed that you have two Amazon.Com ads about Gun safety. That is all I a asking for--I never and suggested that the right to own a gun should be prohibited, but there are certain restrictions that should be in place.

      There should be a middle ground, but I doubt we will find it in my lifetime.

      I do not believe in your basis thesis, but I am not going to take the time, nor have the time to research and dispute it. Your original argument has been lost in the ongoing conflict regarding gun regulation, whether the leaders are atheists, Christians or other.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hi Larry Wall, with the length of the comments and other things going on, it'll take me a bit of thinking to get it all responded to as properly as I'd like. :)

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Larry sez: I was a newspaper reporter for 16 years, small market, where people like to fish and hunt. I took a lot of pictures of the deer people had bagged and other similar pictures. I also wrote a lot of stories about accidental deaths of children who were "playing" with a gun they found in the house that they thought was not loaded. The people of the community where I worked heard about that.

      Jack replies: None of which implies that “people who favor gun control are not always heard.”

      Larry sez: People awaiting trial: that is a good one. We had a serial killer in Baton Rouge where I lived a few years ago. He was arrested without bond. Should he be allowed to order a gun to be delivered to the prison.

      Jack replies: Descending into silliness again, Larry?

      Larry sez: There are people who are charged with negligent homicide and are released on bond--no I do not think they should have the right to buy guns.

      Jack replies: Well, if you want to go ahead and tell the world that you don’t believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty go ahead. I won’t stop you.

      Larry sez: There bond agreement may say they cannot own one, but that does not stop them from buying them over the internet. Congress can control interstate commerce. It could prevent the interstate sale via the internet of weapons, ammunition and other dangerous items.

      Jack replies: Didn’t read a single word of what I posted earlier about gun sales and the Internet, did you. If you claim you did, then why are you still ranting about things that just are not true? You’re like the guy complaining about how badly the unicorns are being treated down at the local circus.

      And why should Congress stop the sale of perfectly legal items just because YOU don’t like them. Let’s stop the sale of books, magazines and Bibles over the Internet also. Some people may get ideas from them that I prefer they not have.

      Larry sez: I did not contradict myself. A college student can own a gun. He just should not be allowed to bring it on campus and it should not be allowed as a concealed weapon. If he has a gun in his car and he parks his car off campus, that is his right--I may not like it, but I accept it.

      Jack replies: Oh… so you’ll graciously allow someone to “have a gun” just as long as they can’t have it in a place where it can do them any good. The co-ed coming home from the library who is confronting a rapist will be sure to thank you for your consideration.

      Larry sez: I believe it is the right of the government to provide a safe atmosphere for learning.

      Jack replies: Then establish, with fact and history, that allowing students to CCW on campus makes a campus unsafe. No emoting, no hysteria, no feelings. Just fact. But you can’t do it, can you.

      Larry sez: I do not know if and when you went to college--when I was a freshman, I knew a lot of people in fraternities--I did not belong to one. Many of them consumed a little too much liquor at the fraternity houses. Who was going to be there to take away their keys, or stop them from taking a gun to a fight because somebody looked at them the wrong way. Maturity has a lot to do with gun ownership.

      Jack replies: Poor Larry. He doesn’t know that dozens of campus in many states already allow CCW, with thousands of students legally carrying every single day and not a one of his gloom and doom stories have come true. Many other states allow 18 year olds to carry and there are still no doom and gloom stories from that age group. He would make a good Hollywood script writer but as dealing with actual reality he’s quite weak.

      When all you have to offer as a rational for passing laws is feelings and imagination then you know you are on the losing side.

      Larry sez: You are right, because fortunately we have not yet been faced with that situation. That was an admitted assumption on my part. However, if a person in combat gear holding a rifle walks into a classroom, I would be willing to bet a few people would be killed and the and among the first would be the ones fumbling for the concealed weapon in their book bag. Unfortunately, I am sure one day we will find out which of us is right about that.

      Jack replies: As noted previously, a person who doesn’t have a clue is going to instruct us on how an active shooter scenario will turn out. He even thinks that CCW holders keep their guns in the “book bag.”

      Larry sez: OK on this you may some inaccurate statements. I know how to shoot a gun.

      Jack replies: Having shot a gun decades ago pretty much makes you unqualified to judge how well others use guns.

      Larry sez: I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of some of the pepople who have access to guns.

      Jack replies: 99.99 percent of all gun owners will do no harm to anyone this year. If you choose to dwell upon those .01 percent and make your life and philosophy about who should have what based upon the actions of criminals then more power to you.

      Larry sez: On the above statement you are wrong. In Louisiana, with the backing of the NRA, a person who runs a business out of their home, such as a woman who cuts hair, or the guy who fixes lawnmowers in his back yard, or the person who does a little bookkeeping work out of their home, cannot tell a customer to go put the gun in their car. They can tell the customer to leave and lose the business, but they cannot stop the customer from bringing the gun into the house.

      Jack replies: Again, Larry just contradicted himself in the same paragraph. Either they “cannot tell a customer to go put the gun in their car” OR they can “tell the customer to leave”. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

      And I’d really love to see a cite to that supposed law that you are referencing. Give detail and show us just where in the books, and the code, you found it.

      Larry sez: The same law has been enacted in other states.

      Jack rreplies: Prove it.

      Larry sez: People who own guns are also allowed them bring them to chemical plans. I was a representative for the oil and gas industry. Guns and refineries do not mix.

      Jack replies: Chemical companies and refiners are under the aegis of the Homeland Security Dept. and have federal rules they abide by. Indiana just passed a law allowing legally carried handguns in private cars in parking lots of businesses, but any type of company regulated by the HSD didn’t fall under the state law.

      Larry sez: Every person who buys a gun does not start out with the same level of experience you have. I do not have that level of experience, yet I can buy the same guns you can buy, even though a particular pistol or rifle may be well beyond my capability.

      Jack replies: You still didn’t answer the point about why you want to regulate the “39,999,800 gun owners who didn’t have accidents” and require them to spend billions of dollars on something that is not needed. If YOU want personal training, go for it. If YOU feel YOU are not adequate to buy/own a gun, don’t get it. But don’t put your personal failings on the people who can and do own firearms safely.

      Larry sez: There use to be public service announcements on televisions about hunters--how to carry your weapon, how to maintain it, making sure of your target, etc. I do not think that is asking too much.

      Jack replies: But it is not what you were “asking.” You were demanding that people spend their money on approved training before you would allow them to buy or own a gun. I think it would be a wonderful idea if TV ran regular PSAs on how the Four Cardinal Rules of safe gun handling would be best to follow.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Larry sez: If the army turns on the citizens, there are not going to be enough guns to protect you.

      Jack asks: Tell us, Larry... if YOU were in the Army would YOU "turn on the citizens." If the answer is "no" then what makes you think the other folk in the military would? If your answer is "yes" then that opens up another whole conversation that you might not want to go down.

    • alancaster149 profile image

      Alan Robert Lancaster 4 years ago from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire)

      People like Stalin, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc didn't have to worry about democracy to get in. Hitler got in through Hindenburg giving him his votes, and then abolished the election process. The queue will probably snake its way around the corridors of power with the permission of the White House. Remember Allende and Pinochet? The CIA was told to get rid of Allende because he was a 'Commie', and Pinochet was ushered in. Same everywhere else in 'the Hemisphere' where Lefties came into power. 'Not good', said the White House and saw to it they were 'replaced', ASAP. A right-wing dictatorship is prefereable, they said. Better people disappear mysteriously into torture chambers because they're Commies, than good Christian believers. All this political cleansing started off long before we had guns, before gunpowder was known in Europe. It was called 'The Crusades', supported by the Vatican even at the expense of fellow Christians in Constantinople. It's a long cycle, and it works its way around like a tapeworm. Forget labels, its about Power.

    • Michele Travis profile image

      Michele Travis 4 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

      Jack, you are using yourself in the third person commentary. Why are you doing that? Are you one of the 'those people'?

      Larry isn't, I have read his hubs and his comments. All he does is write and comment. That is pretty normal.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Michele... perhaps you better go back and check just what "third person" means in writing. I'll be waiting...

      And I am glad that Larry is not one of "those people." But it does have me wondering if you're racist, homophobic, sexist, or just plain insulting to assume that "those people" are somehow un-normal.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 4 years ago

      Jack:

      That was about the cheapest most unprofessional comment I have ever read on Hub Pages. I actually thought you were slightly above that.

      For the Record: If I was in the Army I would not turn and fire upon the people. The comment was made under the scenario that we had an overthrow of the government, or that we had never existed under the type of government we have today.

      No, I never served in the Army. I was from the Vietnam era and my lottery number was 256. I was not drafted. I would had not been accepted. With uncorrected vision of 20/200 and 20/100 and allergies to everything, you would not want me in your combat unit.

      That does not mean I do not love this country and the opportunities it has given all of us, including your right to insult a person because his opinion differs from yours. I urge you not to make any comments like that again. It belittles you, it makes your comments meaningless to some people and it shows just how narrow minded you can be.

      I did not ask Michele to speak on my behalf. The insults levied against her were totally out of line. When she says third person, it means you refer to yourself, as in Jack Replies instead of my reply. You can find basic courses on grammar on the Internet.

    • Michele Travis profile image

      Michele Travis 4 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

      How to write about yourself in the Third Person

      Print this article

      Instructions

      1

      Call yourself by name in the paper. The first time you refer to yourself, use your entire name. For subsequent references, use a title and your last name or simply your last name. These are personal pronouns. For example, pretending you are Rex Dalty, write: "Rex Dalty was born in Seattle, Washington." "Dalty relocated to New York City when he was 18."

      2

      Use common pronouns "he," "she," "his," "hers," "him" and "her" in sentences as you describe yourself, your activities, your accomplishments, your education, your history, your family and your beliefs. For example, write: "An avid runner, he participates in several marathons every year."

      3

      Interchange referring to yourself by personal pronouns (title and last name or last name only) and using common pronouns. For example, write: "Dalty received his B.S. in secondary education from New York University. He graduated with honors in 2005."

    • Michele Travis profile image

      Michele Travis 4 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

      By the way 'those people' are those who insult others for no reason at all.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Larry sez: That was about the cheapest most unprofessional comment I have ever read on Hub Pages. I actually thought you were slightly above that.

      Jack replies: Errr…. Larry…. YOU were the one who said that the U.S. military would fire on its own citizens. It wasn’t me who said that. It wasn’t Fred or Susie or Sam who accused the military of being willing to do that. It was YOU.

      If you’re not willing to now acknowledge it, and try to deflect the blame for that by accusing me of “insulting” you then that is on your shoulders. But scroll back quickly reveals that YOU were the one insulting hundreds of thousands of patriotic soldiers who have written a black check out to the country for up to and including their lives.

      Larry sez: For the Record: If I was in the Army I would not turn and fire upon the people.

      Jack replies: But you believe everyone else would, eh. Can’t have it both ways.

      Larry sez: That does not mean I do not love this country and the opportunities it has given all of us, including your right to insult a person because his opinion differs from yours. I urge you not to make any comments like that again. It belittles you, it makes your comments meaningless to some people and it shows just how narrow minded you can be.

      Jack replies: It’s easy to feel “insulted” when your definition of insult is “Dang, he caught me in a hard spot and I don’t like it.”

      Larry sez: I did not ask Michele to speak on my behalf. The insults levied against her were totally out of line.

      Jack replies: You mean asking her to define “those people”? She choose the exact words to use. I’m just asking her what they mean. If she doesn’t want to be misunderstood then she shouldn’t attempt to write so coyly.

      Larry sez: When she says third person, it means you refer to yourself, as in Jack Replies instead of my reply. You can find basic courses on grammar on the Internet.

      Jack replies: Well I could put your sentences in bold and mine in italics… but the system won’t let me. I could put your sentences in red and mine in green… but the system won’t let me. So I choose a very simple method that even a child can understand. You say something by name… I respond by name. It’s like a script in a play. Do you believe that all scripts are “third person” because it references names along the dialogue so that everyone knows the lines of everyone else?

      Let’s look at several sentences from random from my responses…

      “And I’d really love to see a cite to that supposed law that you are referencing.”

      “Didn’t read a single word of what I posted earlier about gun sales and the Internet, did you.”

      “I wasn’t aware that either stupidity, or murder, are protected by the Constitution.”

      “I've never had a desire to go onto a fishing hub and explain to the fishermen about their hobby. That's because I know absolutely nothing about fishing.”

      “I guess we can make it doubly-illegal to satisfy your desires.”

      Now… each of those statements were made by me, and reference myself. Okay, Larry, which of these statements are in the THIRD PERSON? Give me just one of them in the third person. Just one. But you can’t do it, can you. Because you don’t understand the difference between identity markers and the actual dialogue.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      How to write about yourself in the Third Person

      Print this article

      Instructions

      Call yourself by name in the paper. The first time you refer to yourself, use your entire name. For subsequent references, use a title and your last name or simply your last name. These are personal pronouns. For example, pretending you are Rex Dalty, write: "Rex Dalty was born in Seattle, Washington." "Dalty relocated to New York City when he was 18."

      [Find an example of this in any of my statements. Go ahead. Be specific. Give detail.]

      Use common pronouns "he," "she," "his," "hers," "him" and "her" in sentences as you describe yourself, your activities, your accomplishments, your education, your history, your family and your beliefs. For example, write: "An avid runner, he participates in several marathons every year."

      [Find an example of this in any of my statements. Go ahead. Be specific. Give detail.]

      Interchange referring to yourself by personal pronouns (title and last name or last name only) and using common pronouns. For example, write: "Dalty received his B.S. in secondary education from New York University. He graduated with honors in 2005."

      [Find an example of this in any of my statements. Go ahead. Be specific. Give detail.]

      Let’s face it. You blew it. As with Larry, you simply cannot tell the difference between an identity marker and dialogue. You cannot find a single example of what you are accusing me of in any of this hub. Not once.

    • Michele Travis profile image

      Michele Travis 4 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

      Ok, let's make it simple.

      Jack replies: But you believe everyone else would, eh. Can’t have it both ways.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Michele sez: By the way 'those people' are those who insult others for no reason at all.

      Jack replies in the first person: I am soooo sorry. I should have read your mind to have known that in the very first place. (For the benefit of the grammatically challenged the preceding sentence was in the first person voice.)

      Of course, as noted with Larry, people who play the victim-card and declare themselves “insulted” are just admitting that they got put into a logical box that they cannot find a way out of by using emotion and whining. You want others to think you’re a poor, helpless girl who feels vapors upon hearing a reply you don’t like…. Go for it. I won’t stop you.

    • alancaster149 profile image

      Alan Robert Lancaster 4 years ago from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire)

      This Hub's been hi-jacked for a personal slanging match, hasn't it? Guilty consciences playing up? If you want to confess find a priest.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      As noted, Michele... you don't know the difference between an identity marker distinguishing my comments from another poster's comments, and the actual dialogue within the comments.

      When you find a sentence such as "Jack believes that you believe everyone else would, eh. Can’t have it both ways." then get back to us.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      You're right, Alan. I have no idea why would-be Grammar Nazis want to turn this into a forum of the correct "person" to respond to other's posts. There are much more serious issues here that we have tried to address.

    • Michele Travis profile image

      Michele Travis 4 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

      That is true, and I am sorry for getting off the topic. I will now go back to gun control. There are some men who do not think women should be able to protect themselves ever. I am not using the third person comment now. But, women get raped, attacked and even killed. Men are stronger. Why can't a woman defend herself?

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 4 years ago

      Jack Barton:

      I am not going to rehash all of your misquotes, out-of-context and suppositions. I favor reasonable gun control you are opposed to all gun control. That is the bottom line.

      I will add that you are a bully. I mentioned that my wife was a teacher who had a student killed by a stray bullet and you talk about teachers molesting children.

      You have never been wrong in your life--or at least you believe that.

      I never said the Army would turn on the people. I said if the Army did I would not shoot anyone. You try to turn hypothetical comments into real events, so you can get a jab at the person.

      I am through with you. I will not respond to any hub or comment you may offer. If you respond to this, I will ignore it. If you respond to anything I write I will deny it. You have freedom of speech, just like I do. I also have the right to ignore you.

      "Finally, you stated, Of course, as noted with Larry, people who play the victim-card and declare themselves “insulted” are just admitting that they got put into a logical box that they cannot find a way out of by using emotion and whining. You want others to think you’re a poor, helpless girl who feels vapors upon hearing a reply you don’t like…. Go for it. I won’t stop you."

      I never said anything to that effect. I think you are rude, arrogant and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

      I believe the rest of us are not nearly as ignorant as you portray in your writings.

      You are a bully. I have dealt with your kind for years and found the best way was to ignore you. I suggest everyone who has been misquoted, taken out of context or lied about by you do the same.

      Our communications are complete.

      Be careful what you say, it may come back to haunt you.

      Good day.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Larry sez: I am not going to rehash all of your misquotes, out-of-context and suppositions.

      Jack replies: And ~this~, Dear Readers, is EXACTLY why I put Larry’s name and my name on each remark. So you can see for yourself that there are no misquotes, out of context and suppositions in anything I post on. Larry’s words are what they are.

      Larry sez: I favor reasonable gun control you are opposed to all gun control. That is the bottom line.

      Jack replies: The bottom line is that you’ve never, ever given any examples of “reasonable gun control” that actually does anything positive.

      Larry sez: I will add that you are a bully. I mentioned that my wife was a teacher who had a student killed by a stray bullet and you talk about teachers molesting children.

      Jack replies: Let’s determine which of us is really a “bully”, Dear Readers. Larry feels it is okay to post about gun owners who do stupid things, and then demand that all gun owners should somehow feel guilty about having a 2nd Amendment. Yet, HE doesn’t want me to post about teachers who do stupid things. Larry wants freedom for him to post about stupid people… but not me. Which of us is truly attempting to be a bully and shut the other person up?

      Larry sez: You have never been wrong in your life--or at least you believe that.

      Jack replies; Larry also believes in the ad hominem attack.

      Larry sez: I never said the Army would turn on the people.

      Jack replies: Actually, let me quote Larry… “If the army turns on the citizens, there are not going to be enough guns to protect you.”

      Now, since we are in a discussion of firearms and guns, why would Larry even bring up the “army turning on the citizens” if it was not germane to the discussion? If he now claims it was a complete hypothetical comment then why even bring it up during a serious discussion?

      Larry sez: I am through with you. I will not respond to any hub or comment you may offer. If you respond to this, I will ignore it. If you respond to anything I write I will deny it.

      Jack replies: Denying that you’ve written something when everyone can see in plain sight that you wrote it is not going to win discussion points, eh.

      Larry sez: I think you are rude, arrogant and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

      Jack replies: I don’t have to be that smart…. Just smarter than you. And here’s what you’ve never provided…

      -- The Louisiana law that you said existed that allows people to carry into private homes. Where is it?

      -- Evidence that students who legally CCW will be the first ones shot.

      -- Evidence that students who legally CCW will misbehave with their firearms.

      -- Evidence that people can buy legally guns interstate over the internet without going thru a gun shop.

      -- Evidence that a registered gun will stop any crime, anywhere, at any time from being committed.

      -- Evidence that mandated government training will, in any way, be worth the billions of dollars spent on it.

      -- Evidence that the right to keep and bear arms did not exist as a personal right before Heller v.

      And dozens of other things that Larry has been asked for in the course of these discussion. He has failed to provide any of this material, and has not even attempted to do so even though he made the initial statement of support for each of them. Why, Dear Readers, do you think Larry did not/could not back up a single thing he claimed?

      Larry sez: I believe the rest of us are not nearly as ignorant as you portray in your writings.

      Jack replies: Then answering all the above should be a snap for you, eh.

      Larry sez: You are a bully.

      Jack replies: Let me translate that for the Dear Readers. “I am unable to answer a single question Jack gives me so I’ll pout and call him names.”

      Larry sez: I have dealt with your kind for years and found the best way was to ignore you.

      Jack replies: Yes, we can see this quite well. :-). You’ve done a stellar job of ignoring any attempt to actually back up anything you’ve posted with factual information.

      Larry sez: I suggest everyone who has been misquoted, taken out of context or lied about by you do the same.

      Jack replies: Again, that’s why I quoted Larry each and every time. Makes it hard to claim you’ve been misquoted when your actual words are there in front of everyone.

      Larry sez: Our communications are complete.

      Jack replies: I believe the Dear Readers have seen enough to determine which of us deals in emotional rants and which has facts on hand.

      Larry sez: Be careful what you say, it may come back to haunt you.

      Jack replies: And he believes in ghosts, also.

    • Theeyeballkid profile image

      Theeyeballkid 4 years ago

      Article well and truly Hijacked!!! Strangely enough I think Jack and Larry are both very decent people, let the battle continue!

      Wes you are a great guy, I have read a few of your articles tonight and you wear your heart on your sleeve, you articulate what many people (like myself) can't put into words and fear about what is happening around us. I watch the situation in the U.S very closely, and it is going the same way as what has happened here in the UK, the political class have liberalised (or dumbed down) the opposition so that any free thinking people left are outcast as conpiracy theorists. And it takes too much effort to explain to "normal folk" how it has got to this point. I look at you people in the US in envy, you still have the rebellious spirit, you still have politicians like Ron Paul that say what they mean and don't waiver (he will be a hero one day). We have none of that, we have no hope here.

      I know you get down from time to time about the HP mafia but it is an important message that you are conveying, and keep up the great work.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 4 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      So, now what was this Hub about again? Oh yes, atheism and gun control. Wes, I am with you. Anyone can point to evil people in the past who arranged mass murders, even genocides. But, since the French Revolution, government mass murders have been, with a few smaller exceptions, done by atheistic socialists, national or otherwise. First, take power, second, disarm the populace, third, kill everyone who opposes your regime. This is the classic leftist dream.

      And, just today I read that in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has ordered the complete disarming of the nation. Only military and police may have firearms. Sad. If I were a Venezuelan, I'd run for the hills. If Chavez survives his cancer, the future looks grim.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      MikeNV, thanks for giving me a bit of hope for the future and also for the encouragement. I think I'll keep going with this theme forever.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Thanks very much, Paula, and I hope nobody here ever forgets that the spirit of rebellion against the global powers is exactly what brought all of us here, and kept us from being English subjects first, and with the guns, invaded by the Japanese in the !940's!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hi Larry Wall,

      The tragic point you make about the foolishness of firing guns into the sky at celebrations is very real, and a more serious thing than most folks realize. I don't see or know of that happening much in the US, but I'm sure it happens.

      Its the standard thing in Mexico - I've spent a couple New Years Eves down there.

      I do disagree to denying someone the right to protecting themselves for having a felony record, but were you to say "violent felony record," then we could agree on that one.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      dwachira - the police in the USA seem to be beating and killing any or everyone these days, and then there is Mexico, a nation full of little but vicious drug cartels armed to the teeth!!!

      It can be dangerous out there, and the cops are as dangerous to the rest of us as are the gangsters!! Stay safe!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hey Chris, this hub was written more specifically as a personal rebuttal aimed towards specific persons who probably know all about this history, but never acknowledge it due to their hypocritical rabid anti theism

      Chris we've lots of room over here for hunting, etc, and our store bought meat isn't necessarily safe to eat. We also have Mexico and armed to the teeth cartel gangsters to consider, U.K. is lucky to have no 3rd world narco states on its borders!!!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hey Jack, you certainly have a handle on the legislative and judiciary on the subject of firearms in the USA!!!!

      Thanks for all the information in the comments, I might well make use of all of that as time goes on!

    • Living Well Now profile image

      Living Well Now 4 years ago from Near Indianapolis

      Hmmm...you've overlooked the genocide of the Nazi's. They were primarily Christian. And the genocide in Rwanda, a Christian nation? What about mass killings in Sudan, a Muslim nation? Or the Native American genocide; Trail of Tears anyone? Those who are ignorant of history...

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Living well, this is about atheism's inherent and grossly more numerous and atrocious murders.

      Hitler was a theosophist - you should learn the word and its relative epistemology. Hitler also pales in comparison to the atheist mass murderers. Forgot??? Hardly, just focused and educated.

    • tmbridgeland profile image

      tmbridgeland 4 years ago from Small Town, Illinois

      Living Well now, as I mentioned above there are some smaller massacres and genocides in recent history that were not done by atheistic socialists. Rwanda was a horror, but by the very low standards of the 20th century just a small one. Sudan, the same. The Native Americans were certainly slaughtered in some places, but most of the killing was done by disease. Read some history? The Nazis were Christians in the limited sense of being born as members of the state church, but even then Christianity was a spent force in Europe, and the intellectual vigor was with the socialists of both left and right wing varieties, Nazis and Communists and Fascists.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      "Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself" - that is virtually the be all end all of Christianity, but the drone-bots of the "new atheist movement" have been programmed with a fundamentalist's stupidity, an ignorance of fact, and a mis-contextual ignorance of theology that interpolates a rapt stupidity of political paradigms so severe as to cause the long dead Hegel to roll over in the grave....

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Alan, I think the collectivism utopian ideal is a real threat in the USA now. I think the wealth hoarders created the economic disparity at the behest of Bilderberg to profligate it far and wide among the masses full of laziness and unrealistic expectations of bread and circuses.

      I think it is erroneous to think the crusades anything but political though - Jesus said to love thy neighbour, not burn him at the stake or make war on him for Palestine.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      The original intent of the first Crusades were to take back Christian lands from those who conquered it, and were oppressing the Christians of the lands. One can certainly argue whether or not that was the proper task of the European church, but to deny it was done in good faith and with good intentions is itself dealing in bad faith.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Wes, thank you for the kind words. I have a ton of stuff on my hubs that you're always welcome to copy and use for the benefit of the right to keep and bear arms.

      BTW... sorry for what some perceive as "hijacking" your hub but I couldn't let Larry's misstatements pass by without correction.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Theeyeballkid - thank you very very much for the compliments!!!!!

      I sort of ditched "proper society" a long time ago, this internet writing thing is like a therapy for me!!!! It seriously keeps me out of trouble!

    • pramodgokhale profile image

      pramodgokhale 4 years ago from Pune( India)

      Yes these were tyrants, they were anti God or non -believers.In their high time no one was able stop them.

      Religion and its fanatic is also a problem, from where anti religion extremist emerged.

      Human race and mind is a complicated machine, but there should be compulsory or self regulation to control mankind.

      Thank you.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      pramodgokhale - thanks very much! I believe this age of humanity is just about over now. It's going to get worse before it gets better, but we can only do so much.

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      Good hub - I wanted to comment but after reading the Larry vs Jack tirade I'm worn out. Brings to mind a couple kids at recess - did to - did not - did to - did not. Or prhaps a Republican and a Democrat arguing an issue - those two need to go share a smoke, or have a beer.

      Anywasy Wesman there are many bad guys down through history, and today, whose wiring went wrong regardless of their label - Christian - Atiest - whatever. Power corupts and absolute power corupts absolutely, and when their followers follow with blind faith ????????

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Thanks very much, RBJ33! That is a partial theme, of course, disarming the public gives absolute power to the absolutely corrupted. :)

    • alancaster149 profile image

      Alan Robert Lancaster 4 years ago from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire)

      'Theosophy' is a useful word, Wes. What's the word for the ones who hi-jack somebody else's work to rattle on at one another. They're maybe 'Thermo-sophists' (Hot Air philosophers).

      Ah well, here's another thought for you: 'There's nowt so queer as folk' (sort that one out)!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      THERMOSOPHISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Yes people can be quite strange - but I believe most of us are a lot more simple than is imagined in the public hive mind.

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      Yes Wesernman that's a given -

    • Shaddie profile image

      Shaddie 4 years ago from Washington state

      Very true, I like your outlook on all this stuff. I don't even have a gun, frankly I'm a little scared to hold them (pretty sure I'll accidentally hurt myself), but I 100% agree with the possession of firearms.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Shaddie... guns can be quite frightening to those who are unused to them, but once they are mastered they can lead to a lot of enjoyment (and empowerment).

      While not a perfect analogy, let me compare them to a strange, large dog that may be pretty snarly. You wouldn't just jump up and try to hug the dog and persuade it that you're its best friend. You approach the dog with care and understanding, knowing that it will take incremental approaches to gain the trust of the pooch in order to eventually become bonded.

      Of course, the difference is the dog has a mind of its own and a gun doesn't.

      There are many good people out there who can work with you to gradually understand guns and take you shooting. Always start with learning the safety rules, the same as you do with animals. Learn the mechanics, the same as you do with animals. If you push here, this happens. If you pull here, then that happens.

      So far, it is nothing that you have not done many times in the past under other circumstances. It's also the same help that you've given people who might have a fear of animals. That should help you feel more comfortable.

      Animals trainers normally don't start their career with lions, tigers and elephants, and starting shooting should be done with a small caliber weapon such as a .22 LR. You'll never feel the recoil, and the noise, while there, is very bearable. After 30 minutes of shooting a .22 you might be surprised at how interesting and fun it is. Especially if you are shooting at about ten feet and can actually note the number of times you are hitting the target. (Balloons are great to shoot -- I still get a "yeah" feeling when I pop that balloon.)

      I've taught many women to shoot and they've all been gratified to learn how. Don't ask someone that you consider a jerk to teach you. If they are a jerk everywhere else they'll probably be a jerk on the firing line. That is the absolute worst thing that can happen to you if you want to learn how to enjoy shooting -- or even just to get comfortable with it so you lose your fear of it.

      I encourage you to mouse around the Cornered Cat website... it is by women and for women...

      http://www.corneredcat.com/Why_I_Carry_a_Gun/

    • alancaster149 profile image

      Alan Robert Lancaster 4 years ago from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire)

      Wouldn't it be nice if some of the people who own or use guns had minds of their own instead of trusting to the gun having one. Trouble is they get power-mad in possession. It's too easy to run amok with a gun. It takes courage bordering on the insane to carry a blade into battle. With a gun you only have to pull a trigger, whereas with a sword or axe you have to 'do your own' killing. Virtually anybody can be a hero now.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Alan when I was 12 I got my first gun. My parents knew they taught me well - I wandered freely, unsupervised all over the open fields with it loaded.

      I'm looking at it as I type this, it is next to grandfather's gun, and these maniacs are mostly one's fearful imagination.

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      There are many good gun owners - those that were taught properly and respect the gun, and what it can do. Then there are those that do not - the few that cause havoc and death because they are a little off center, are deranged, or just plain mean spirited. The question is how do we keep them separated? How do we keep guns out of the hands of the second group? There must be a way to be compatible with the first group, leave them to their guns and their respect for them, honor the right to bear arms. But how do we effectively keep guns from the second group, and out of Mexico? Is all this a corporate issue - profits and the bottom line? You know those corporations that have now been declared "persons". No Wesman there are real manics out there, not just imaganary ones - ask the victim's families, and the survivors in Arizona at Gabby's political rally - ask the families of victims in Mexico - ask the families of victims in the college campus shootings at VMI and Texas University - ask the survivors at Columbine High School here in Colorado - there are lots of people you could ask who were survivors or witnesses to some maniac that didn't respect the gun, or human life.

    • texshelters profile image

      texshelters 4 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

      Interesting post, Wes, however, some of the causality hinted at here is misleading.

      Stalin was anti-religious, but it doesn't follow that all people who are anti-religious are anti-gun or mass murderers. What about the ever so religious Japanese in WWII? Are you going tell me those lovers of the gun (at least for the Japanese people) didn't kill millions of Chinese? It must have been religion that caused it then, eh?

      There are plenty examples of gun toting religious fanatics that killed people too in the name of the lord. Try Argentina and Chile in the eighties, for one. They were "Christian" governments.

      And hey, the US is a god fearing nation, supposedly, and people can own guns, but that doesn't stop us from killing people with drone strikes.

      I think you can point more to "dictatorships" of all stripes leading to mass murders.

      Idi Amin was into Islam, and he killed around 300,000 people. And that Catholic Mussolini? He was so peaceful because of his religion, right?

      Now, Stalin is one of the top murderers in history. However, I have not found links or evidence of his gun banning ways. Did he ban all guns, or just pistols? The only links I find are right-wing propaganda. If you have a source, book, or other that will confirm the actual gun laws during Stalin's time, send them my way.

      And Pol Pot's history is not well documented. I have read about Mao, but I am not sure if hunting rifles were still allowed? I would like to know specifics.

      I am a non-believer, and I don't care if you have a gun and I am not planning on killing anyone.

      It's dictatorships that lead to mass killing, not atheism. Atheism is just a convenient ideology for some tyrants just like nationalism and corporatism are.

      PTxS

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      RB asks: The question is how do we keep them separated?

      Jack answers:

      According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report of December 2000

      http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/economic-20...

      “…costs of alcohol abuse grew from $148 billion in 1992 to $185 billion in 1998, approximately a 25 percent increase”

      Who knows where it is in 2012, but with certainty it has not gone down. We can perhaps put a dollar figure on alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t even begin to put a face on the shattered and lost lives, the beaten wives, the children who grow up under intolerable conditions, the jobs lost, the companies gone bankrupt, and the hazards it creates for everyone else who is innocent.

      The question is, are we as a country willing to accept hundreds of thousands of incidents for the freedom of a few to abuse a substance whose sole purpose is to get people drunk and create chaos? Or, are those people who demand that all alcohol either be strictly controlled or banned all together have the right of it?

      We do understand that the people of the United States decided that question decades ago... Remember Prohibition? Those who pushed the 18th Amendment had dreams of utopia. Get rid of demon rum and the world will be a better, safer place. It didn’t work out as they had planned. So what happened? American society, knowing full well that many would misuse alcohol, that some believed that alcohol existed for the sole purpose of getting people drunk, that homes would be lost, children abused, jobs lost, lives lost, tens of thousands of more car wrecks, and Bowery Bums roaming the streets, still passed the 21st Amendment giving back to Americans the freedom to choose what they would do.

      They considered the “collateral damage” well worth the price of freedom. It's the same with guns. There are laws against the misuse of guns. There are laws against the "wrong" people having guns. But as long as we are a free society... some very few will manage to find a way to hurt themselves and others with guns. The very same as we tolerate alcohol in our society with all the damage done to our communities; we've made the decision to tolerate the freedom to have firearms.

      And I am the son of an alcoholic -- I have very intimate first hand knowledge of just what harm comes to a family, and to individuals from demon rum. But I've never called for it to be prohibited. There was never a bottle invented that picked itself up and poured it down my dad's throat. Or my brother's throat. Or my other brother's throat. You think they would have learned better from the bad example Dad set. But society gave them that freedom to make bad choices that sometimes hurt themselves and others.

      I'd rather have that freedom than an obsessive nanny state that desires to control the actions and essential freedom of others.

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      There you are Jack Burton, I wondered where you were. I was born on the day Prohibiton ended. At about 4PM or so on December 5, 1933 the state of Utah cast the deciding vote to ratify Amendment 21 which repealed Amendement 18 and Probition ended - you could look it up - I was born about 3 hours later. Every time someone (not alcoholics) has an adult beverage they should think of me. I've always been under the impression alcoholism was a physical sickness, is that corerect? You should know.

      I believe in the right to own guns - I don't own one, never felt the need nor the desire. My dad was a policeman and had his gun near by 24/7, but he nor anyone else in my family was a hunter so other than my dad's police pistol I just wan't exposed to guns. Got my fill in basic training. So on that issue I'm with you legimate, responsible gun owners. But I don't buy the analogy of alcoholism and maniac gun owners.

      Actually I think you folks should worry more about being bought by the billionaires and corporations rather than the Government taking your guns, which won't happen. I'd fear the loss of your livelyhood, and your freedom, whichh would be equally bad, and probably worse. Wisconsin just got bought, are you next?

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      I wish to apologize first to Wesman Todd Shaw - this was a great hub as evidenced by all the responses. I kind of strayed away from letting you know that - keep writing my friend. Next I wish to apologize to Jack Burton for getting sloppy in the last line of the above comment - there are two typos - the sentence should read "I'd fear the loss of your livleyhood and your freedom, which would be equally bad and probably worse. Wisconsin just got bought, are you next." I tried to edit before it went but couldn' quite get it done.

      Jack you seem a decent guy but our conversation is beginnng to be boring. Youv'e expressed your feelings and beliefs as have I. I have other hubs I want to read and comment so I must move on. I leave you with the hope you can get rid of your anger. Your life is what you make it be - you are obviously intelligent and a good thinker. So, adios hombre - be safe, be well and chill.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hey Shaddie - guns are much better to have and not need than to need and not have!!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Tex - anyone in the world can claim to be a Christian, Buddhist, or whatever they choose to call themselves. I can go read Mensa books and claim to be a genius....but that won't raise my IQ a single point. Calling one's self a Christian has never a Christian made.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      rb sez: I leave you with the hope you can get rid of your anger.

      Jack replies: This is the philosophy of a poster who believes that people can't possible have legitimate, logical reasons for disagreeing with him, so any post that does ~must~ be done from "anger" or some other emotional response.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      rgb sez: I've always been under the impression alcoholism was a physical sickness, is that corerect? You should know.

      Jack repleis: I've never seen a bottle of beer physically jump up and put its hands around anyones throat, forcing them to drink it. If alcoholism is a physical sickness then the hundreds of thousands of people who have been helped by programs such as AA have just imagined in vain that their willpower (and dependence upon a higher power) has keep them dry.

      rb se: But I don't buy the analogy of alcoholism and maniac gun owners.

      Jack replies: I don't buy it either. But since no one made such an analogy then your point is moot. I made the analogy with the FREEDOM to choose.

      RB sez: Actually I think you folks should worry more about being bought by the billionaires and corporations

      JAck repleis: Darn straight. The obscene amount of money that George Soros, the Hollywood left and the incorporated unions have put into liberal politics have complete distorted the means by which we choose our government officials. Why, just the other day Obama went to SIX fundraisers in ONE DAY.

      rj sez: Wisconsin just got bought, are you next?

      Jack replies: When a 100 lb weakling starts a fight on the beach with a 200 lb body builder just to impress his girlfriend, and he gets his a$$ kicked, he shouldn't go whining to his buddies about how unfair it was.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Thanks RBJ33!!!!!! No need to apologize to me - I'm appreciative of even the scathing comments I sometimes get, they are better than none at all!! :)

    • texshelters profile image

      texshelters 4 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

      If someone goes to services (Chile, Argentina) and meets with the pope, Mussolini, then I give them the benefit of the doubt. Who are you to say their assertions of faith are false? Are you trying to say that Christians have not been mass murderers too? Really?

      Dictators do tend to be mass murderers, whatever their faith or lack of faith.

      PTxS

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Tex, now you are asking theological questions - questions with answers, but if someone claims to be an atheist, there is little point in answering them as they have already stated "I'm not listening."

    • RBJ33 profile image

      RBJ33 4 years ago

      I am a weakling - I could not resist coming back to see what Jack sez - but sorry Jack I am not going to join in on a did to - did not - did to - did not peaing contest with you.

      But I will mention Jack sez - did not mention any of the compliments paid him, and there are a few, he just mentions the ones he hopes bait me. Oh yes, Jack you are quite the twister and a fair comedian - I appreciate your writings.

      Adios Hombre

    • texshelters profile image

      texshelters 4 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

      Stalin was a student at a Russian Orthodox school at the age of 10. And during WWII he reestablished the church as a patriotic institution, but then after the war, but the church was further suppressed under Khrushchev. It's a pretty mixed picture and I am not sure if Stalin was an actual atheist, or just an anti-religious communist. Further research must be done.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

      PTxS

    • Hendrika profile image

      Hendrika 4 years ago from Pretoria, South Africa

      These facts are very disturbing especially if I think that I live in an atheist country where the government is also trying to restrict fire arms "to prevent all the vicious crime"

    • paperlake profile image

      Liz 4 years ago from atop a unicorn, vanquishing evildoers

      Great article. The topic - however well-known - is lusciously riveting and something that never fails to spark my interest. Unfortunately, when atheists read an article like this, they seem to immediately look past all the facts (an inborn defense mechanism at work or somesuch) and see only a sheltered religious person hissing at them and calling them "evil". Christians aren't that adorable in reality. We see that there is a rich and elaborate history which, when assembled, makes incredibly compelling points that cannot be overlooked. Too bad they can't. I'd only recommend that you copy & paste this article into Microsoft Word or something to edit some spelling mistakes/grammar errors - maybe removing an overused word or two - and it'd be perfect. Good work.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      To suggest that there is a correlation between atheism, gun control, and mass murder is just plain ridiculous. First off Stalin had the backing of the Russian Orthodox church and was worshiped as a god by his citizens, so in other words he lead a state religion, where people worshiped their dear leaders. Hitler was also a pronounced Roman Catholic and also made treaties with the Vatican, which celebrated his birthday every year until 1945. Kim Jong Un was also seen as a god and was reported to have been born of a virgin and at his funeral birds were apparently singing in Korean! And Kim Jong Il is the reincarnation of the father, you can see where I'm going with this. To say all atheists are mass murders is an insult undeserving of someone as yourself, who obviously has not done there homework. Atheism doesn't tie a person to any set of beliefs, it just states that they don't believe in a supernatural dimension. Steven Weinberg puts it nicely, "Left on their own good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. But if you want a good person to do an evil thing you need religion."

    • profile image

      Ryan 4 years ago

      You just named several instances where religion was replaced with a paradigm that again subverts reason. Not only do you rely on sensationalist tactics to rile up support but time and time again you provide 'facts' without context. Do you think that if the government wanted to start killing people that your 12-gauge shotgun would hold off an F16? How about this, check out the homicide rate in the UK in the last year and compare it with ours. Now I'm relying on you do to a little independent research (though I advise against it because it's a slippery slope to not believing in magic). Upon doing so you'd see that the United Kingdom's firearm homicide rate time and time again is in the double digits while our homicide rate remains in the thousands. Its this kind of weak hyperbolic phrasing that landed us in Iraq etc.

      #youmakemeashamedtobeanamerican

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      Oh I wasn't arguing about gun control at all. I believe that people have the right to bear arms against the government when needed. I was just stating that attaching it to atheism is a misnomer. Sweden for instance is the most atheist country, they have the less teen pregnancies, least amount of crimes, and so on. If you go to the world health organization page you can get better numbers. I don't feel like religion was replaced in those regimes. Those leaders were praised as gods, which even claimed supernatural powers, especially Hirohito of Japan. Religion to me is more than just a holy book it's a way of thinking and wanting to be a slave of a certain party.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

      Ryan, are you stating for the record that if YOU were in that F-16 you would willingly bomb your fellow citizens? If you say "no" then what makes you think that other people will do so?

      What do you think would happen if the chief mechanic for that group of planes knew that his grandmother lived in the city that was going to be bombed? Or the weapons crew chief knew that was where he went to high school, and all his friends were still there?

      Stating that the 12 gauge shotgun does not stand up against the military weapons presupposes that the military will have the staff behind those weapons.

      Americans against Americans? It's not going to be quite the picture that you make of it. The last time the government tried that on a large scale it found that it bit off much more than an easy swallow. The next time it won't go down the same way.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Tex, are you suggesting Stalin just worked it whichever way he thought the power antenna got the best reception??

      I can buy that - but still there is the problem of atheism's creed of man as beast, which devalues life, allowing for his atrocities.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hendricka - Criminals never seem to care what the laws are, and they will certainly always have guns.

      I think so long as a nation doesn't make atheism a part of it's national ideology, then things might not get so bad.

      I also think atheism is dying out as a fad...if Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is all the new atheist movement has to offer....what a joke!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Howdy Paperlake - I typically catch grammar or spelling errors in time. I don't always enjoy re reading something I wrote though. For whatever reason - I never seem to catch errors at all until after something is published.

      Thank you! Yes - we mustn't upset the wonderful atheists...they are oh so oppressed!!!!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Matt Rudy, I don't believe atheist exist - atheism is merely a delusion, and delusional persons running large governments is a dangerous thing.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hello Ryan, does the United Kingdom have a narco state ran by violent CIA trained drug smugglers financed by American banks just to the South of it?

      I thought not. Comparing apples to potatoes is an exercise in futility.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      @wesman, Atheism is actually the freedom from delusions. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural or anything of the nature. I think your getting it confused with psychopaths, people who have no regard for another. Those are the types of people running the government and large businesses.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Matt Rudy "supernatural" is an invalid word. All things are natural. Nothing can be "supernatural."

      Logical fallacies - you've got em'!

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      How do I have logical fallacies? I just said that I didn't believe in the supernatural because it doesn't exist.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      When you suggest that the majority of the world believes in something that does not exist - that position is one of childish arrogance. Hey, I've been there, done that, bought a t shirt and set it on fire.

      Oh you're going to love it when I publish my Sam Harris hub - it is such a joy to see that moron talk about theology out of utter ignorance. He builds thesis after thesis on a house of cards...which makes everything he says total bullshit.

      It's going to be fun.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      But the majority of the world does believe things that don't exist. I'm not really sure what your point is, but you seem to just be bashing people without any evidence to back yourself up.

      The only thing funny about your Sam Harris hub is that's all it will be, a hub. In the meantime Harris will write another book that will sell millions and make him a shit load of money. I don't know how you build a house of cards on a thesis, they're usually very well written and thought out and go through rigorous criticism and proofs among their faculty, who might hold different beliefs.

      But hey, whatever makes you happy man.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Phew!!!! Wesman, I leave you alone for a few days and look at what you do! My word, boy-toy, you are the very BEST at getting people going and talking and debating....and it's GOOD...it's what we need. Open eyes, open minds.

      I have never been so educated and enlightened, before meeting my mentor, my guru, WTS.....this was fun, but the reading has tired me out.

      PAULA???!! You call me, Paula?? No more "effer?" Are we breaking up and you didn't tell me?

      I'm pissed...but I don't have a gun, so you're safe..lmao. I still love you.....virtually.

      cannot wait for your Sam Harris hub!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Matt Rudy - are you telling me that science can prove a negative???? Sir, did you drop out of school before high school, or are you one arrogant shit talking dude?

      It's plain you equate money with success, that is materialism, an empty philosophy of idiots.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      EFFER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      LOLOLOL!!!! Yeah, no real idea why this one got so many comments...I don't think this is half as controversial as some other things I thought were much better than this one.

      My left hand is healing...I can type with it again now...no guitar playing for me yet though...it is still very "gimpy."

      I was boiling potatoes last night...and somehow dumped boiling water on the injured hand...I'm a serious clutz and injury magnet these days :/

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      No I would agree that science can not prove a negative, but neither can anything else. Trust me I'm a lot smarter than some high school student, so please give me a little more credit than that. As for the arrogant shit talking dude statement, you seem to think that's a bad thing.

      I don't know where you got the view that I think money equates success, considering I never touched on the subject. I do think there is some truth in it however, like if you were running a business. It all depends on your definition of success. I do consider myself a materialist, we are all made of molecules and so on. I think what your getting mixed up is consumerism, the wanting of items that aren't considered a need. I think it's good to want what others have, it's a form of emulation. If some guy has a nice car and beautiful women around him most people would want to be like him. It's all an evolutionary process, I think that is obvious.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Well I'll call a semi truce with you and apologize for insults - but I disagree entirely with your philosophy.

      I think the lowest things possible of Ayn Rand, and I find little value in the material world outside of what I must have to live and communicate, etc - and I've already got that.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      Oh well I'm not a part of the cult of Ayn Rand haha. My view on the world being a material one has nothing to do with my view on morality or anything of the sort. I just accept that things are made of atoms and molecules. If you shoot me in the head I will die. I won't deny something like that because I don't like it. I hope I'm making sense, sometimes it's hard communicating ideas like this on the web.

      But if I could get a sense of your views and philosophy I think it would help us both understand each other.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Well mine is simple: We've five human senses, and we are on a tiny speck of dust in an infinite and expanding universe - so to think we can measure the extent of reality is ridiculous to me.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      It's not so ridiculous. Simple calculus can determine a lot of the measurements. Sure we might not know everything but I don't see that as an excuse to try to discover new things.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      No, but it proves to me that atheism is irrational. We don't know shit - end of story. Claiming "there is no God" is utterly ridiculous.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      Well I think it's ridiculous to claim a god without any evidence, to me that's irrational.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Billions of persons over thousands of years tell you there is evidence, you don't see it - so you think the majority of humanity is irrational.

      That is irrational.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      There is a big difference in telling me evidence and showing the evidence. To me it's not irrational to be skeptical.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      There is nothing irrational about an agnostic. Atheism is irrational, and besides that, unscientific.

    • Matt Rudy profile image

      Matt Rudy 4 years ago from Frisco, TX

      Well Atheism says a person doesn't "believe", however there is no way to prove that god doesn't exist. I could agree that Atheism has nothing to do with being scientific, it just depends on the person. However, the majority of scientists are atheists.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

      "It's important also imo to see how important guns are as a wedge issue in the U.S., particularly to get non-wealthy whites and evangelicals stirred up against the "liberal elites who want to take your guns away", so that republicans can win elections with rich trickle-downers on taxes/economics and non-wealthy folks in the red states. "

      Condescension alert.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Yep, that is what that was.

      Nobody ever addresses any of my real talking points - not the people that support bans on guns.

      It all comes down to trusting government (people you do not know, and who care none for you) with guns over trusting your next door neighbor with guns...and your neighbor does know you, and in fact, you are an asset to your neighbor.

      I do not trust any government. I trust all of my neighbors.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

      You expect them to address your points? hee hee.

      Oh no, they will attack you as a hick redneck uneducated uninformed toothless short-sighted lower-class public school educated Republican who doesn't understand that the world will be perfect when only criminals have guns.

      They know better than you. They just want what is best for you. They want you to think like they do.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      As do the people that run this website! Peas in a bucket!

      Hey, it doesn't stop with guns either. Let them take the guns, and soon we can't carry a pocket knife, let them take the pocket knives, and then they kill all large breeds of protective dogs, then, they kill us...as that is what is best for us.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

      The people who run the website also own the website and it's their sandbox. That's free speech. Hopefully you can work with them.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      I'm moving a lot of things to Blogger and Info Barrel - I'll leave guitars and animals here.

      Hubpages dislikes anyone with a mind for thinking....unless you adore that abomination of Obama, etc.

      It's all good, I don't care. I'll get what I'm after with or without them.

    • Nick Hanlon profile image

      Nick Hanlon 4 years ago from Chiang Mai

      Wow ........Wesman you certainly got a good one here.Agree witht the thrust of what you are saying.But did you know that Stalin encouraged a sniper culture before WW2?Competitions we're held and heroes we're made by state propaganda encouraging long range shooting.It paid off-the Soviets had some of the best snipers of WW2.Point granted though;we must protect out liberty.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Well, Thanks Nick, I saw the film "Enemy At The Gate" by myself in a theater...it was very very good, in my opinion, but I'm prone to like historical things already.

    • Perspycacious profile image

      Demas W Jasper 4 years ago from Today's America and The World Beyond

      In denouncing the mass murderers, let us pause a moment each time to remember the victims, including the youth of Tienanmen Square, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Christians, the Jews, the Arabs, the Shiites and Sunis, the Native Americans, the masses murdered by the Japanese Imperial Army in Nanking and other parts of China, Korea, and elsewhere inAsia. Many today continue to pay the price of man's inhumanity to man, and gangs with guns rule some of America's streets, while politicians play golf and raise funds to garner power.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      I like that, Perspycaious!!!!!!

      Human history is so full of mass murder. Caesar in Gaul, Caesar everywhere he went.... Genghis Kahn - far worse than any I can think of...worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin even....everywhere you look....History and the present is full of horror.

      I don't understand killing anyone outside of self defense...many do not, and so now the USA kills people they claim ...in order to prevent the need to kill them in self defense...what a gem of an idea that is...but nobody seems to be paying attention.

      Shit, that Obama seems to cast some wizard's spell on people every time he starts talking.

    • uzma shaheen profile image

      Uzma Shaheen Bhatti 4 years ago from Lahore,Pakistan

      Whenever I come to your hubs, get new picture of world. Although these facts bring pain in me but its always good to know reality. you have become my favorite hubber on hubpages and your hubs are worth reading.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      uzma shaheen - thanks for the VERY kind comment!

      Of course...my intent for this page was to piss off a ton of atheist sorts that forever proclaim religion as the source of various and sundry wars or evil historical ongoing.

      I guess I could type another thousand words to explain what I mean...but truly I don't much blame human nature and the individual behind an action for that action.

      I hope to someday be motivated to write about history and political things again....I've just not felt like I had much to say in a while.

    • profile image

      Anon 4 years ago

      There's a huge lie in here. Stalin never once endorsed Gun Control, not for a minute- in fact, he freed millions of prisoners from the gulags and armed them to defend Russia, as well as gave housewives rifles and trained them as Snipers. He never needed to take a single gun, because his obvious love of violence on an extreme scale kept people from touching him- by the end of his rule, he had effectively created a sort of Stockholm Syndrome with the Russian people...

      ... For all that even matters, Stalin's most effective tool was famine. He nearly committed total genocide without ever firing a bullet.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      The farmers of the Ukraine were disarmed by Stalin, and then, they were either murdered or sent to die in Siberia when they attempted to revolt...fighting armed me with shovels, pick axes, scythes, hammers, etc.

    • wba108@yahoo.com profile image

      wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

      This gun control issue really isn't about guns as much as its about freedom! Many gun control zealots don't minds guns at all, the real issue is whose allowed to have them!

      Those who advocate strong centralized government power and a government enpowered to shape society, are the one's who want gun control. But the real issue here is really "government control", gun control zealots don't believe that the common people should be empowered to make their own decisions and therefore are unfit to trusted with firearms.

      Part of the stategy of confiscating guns is psychological. An unarmed poeples feel more helpless and dependant, and for those who seek power this is a good thing because it works in their favor politically!

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      wba108@yahoo.com - exactly. It takes a person with real insecurity and a lack of respect for their very neighbors to think only goons in a federal government or police force can be trusted.

    • Kasman profile image

      Kas 3 years ago from Bartlett, Tennessee

      I think I definitely agree on the point that anywhere you take God out of the equation, there is definitely a more chaotic society. Less morals and more government typically. Now, this isn't 100 percent the case.....but it's definitely a high enough number to take seriously. Another thing that most people don't realize either is the fact that most of these dictators or "atheists" will co-opt religion to still seem in good standing with the subjects of the kingdom so to speak. It's just propaganda and a lie overall. It doesn't mean they believe what they profess, it's just to keep the people from full out rebelling and seeing the truth. In a sense, we see it all the time here in the States....especially lately. History always repeats itself and the people typically fall right into the same old trap every time with the warning signs all around them that they are seemingly oblivious to.

      I think it's just like Jesus spoke of mixing religions together or belief systems. You can't worship God and something else. He won't share his glory with another for sure. I think it's also telling that in the underlying of the Communist Manifesto, it's a book dedicated to Satan himself.....saying that he was the first rebel to actually win his own kingdom. Voting this up, very interesting and telling. Sharing my brother.

    • profile image

      Johne434 2 years ago

      To paraphrase, how do you do a search for information sites that fit what I want to check out? Does any body have learned how to BROWSE through blogs and forums by content or anything that on blog writer? . kkeedbbgcfed

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 2 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      John, Google has a blog search engine...which I've not got around to exploring yet, but here it is. http://www.google.com/blogsearch

    • Jason R. Manning profile image

      Jason R. Manning 2 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Hey WTS! Long time my friend, I almost couldn’t make it to the bottom of your comment list, I ran out of cord and had to fire up a diesel generator. First, great hub, succinct and free of diatribe. Secondly, I could follow very well the conversations of Mr. J.Burton and Larry. All those who were upset because of the side conversations are obviously harmed by adult conversations airing serious disagreements. Wes supplied the format and others are contributing their thoughts. Where in Hubpages does it say other posters are not allowed to engage in debate over another’s hub? Sounds like you need to add a post script reminding naysayers of the First Amendment…

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 2 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Hey Jason, I learned something the other day...it's maybe too astounding or improbable to be literally "true," but supposedly, there's never been a reported homicide in a Hutterite community.

      Also, in Israel there is a certain religious sect's community...and I should recall it's name, you'd have heard of it...where the government sends some of the most violent persons they'd had to deal with from the courts of law...because violence is like a fairy tale in that religious community too.

      You know...the extreme persons in any demographic...they provide us all such wonderful slogans and memes and things...that we need to show, if we've not much of a life..like..oh never mind...that they are wrong for spreading.

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 2 years ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      According to Noam Chomsky, the Anglo American Empire killed more people than any other. But I will say, I am a liberal for gun rights because I believe the multiracial Zionist cabal wants to take them away and control the world. Sandy Hook was a hoax carried out by this cabal. Have you heard about the new CIA vaccine hoax?

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 2 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      Also Jason....guess I wasn't signed in...somehow, after coming to the comments notification to see what cmments there where, and indeed...replying to them

      Guess a timer went off and BUZZ!! I became an "anonymous" commenter.

      Bgmail! Haven't seen you online in a long long time. Of course this page is..heck, it's from years ago..don't remember, but it's pretty old I DID decide to come back to here and write new pages...

      Noam is a fascinating fella...he's like a walking encyclopedia...with LOTS of more opinions. I wonder where Chomsky rates the Mongols? For a flat statistic like "who killed the most"...to have a perspective, then time would have to be at least part of a perspective for that....but of course the Mongol empire didn't last long at all.

      Ah...EVIL JEWS! Very literally, I used to be one of those people who was absolutely convinced in the notion of a race which was more or less more evil than any other....Jews...but to top it off, I didn't think there were any real jews...they were all Khazarian...Ah the great Khazarian conspiracy!

      Anyway...you have to toss wild ideas around in your head all the time...it's only truly a wild idea...or a really bad one when you refuse to ever consider others in seeming opposition or direct opposition to the bad idea.

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 2 years ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Well, again, Wesman, you simply don't understand my point of view. Didn't I say that the Zionist cabal was multiracial? Did you even notice that fact?

      That is crucial to my argument. It is not the condemnation of any race. It is the condemnation of the elite Zionists. My natural father was Jewish and I am adopted. I have no interest in destroying one race when the cabal, while accepting racism in Israel, is a globalist, multiracial cabal.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 2 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      bgamall - well I honestly thought you were being more snarky than not. The thing you mention about racism in Israel is apparently true.

      I truly LOVE listening to Norman Finkelstein talk, hopefully I'll get around to reading one of his books at some point or another - incidentally he's banned from Israel....or at least he was, I don't recall for how many years they banned him. Guess that whole notion of a birthright is ...dependent upon the government of Israel, which of course, makes the entire idea invalid. Rights are rights, and if you have them, some government or another can't deem themselves an arbiter of them.

      Of course I completely agree there is a huge and very well documentable globalist government push, and that the thing is seen as wonderful by lots of people from all over the world. Myself, as I'm a random US white guy, I will get heckled by everyone by even using the word "Zionism." Language absolutely evolves - and the big Z word's meaning....well, it's hard to say what exactly any user's definition of that word is these days.

      There's sure a Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv though!

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 2 years ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Ah, glad you noticed I was accurate on this stuff. I wrote an ebook, Wicked Zionism about this very thing. Problem is, Wesman, that Isaiah said the new Zion would come in peace. The "Zionists" backed by Rothschilds from the beginning, stole the term Zion from the bible and used it to force their way back to Palestine by force and intimidation. They are really very wicked people. Jews have been thrown under the bus by Zionists before. The global vision of David Ben-Gurion, atheistic father of Israel, was global domination. And the setting up of the Fed and the assassination of JFK were steps toward that domination.

    • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image
      Author

      Wesman Todd Shaw 2 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

      David Ben-Gurion, now that's a name I've not heard in a while. I need to learn about him then. I've slipped on the entire subject some. It's like I spent at least a year absolutely not thinking about any of it....Thanks for some tips for learning about some of the avenues I'd never went down

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 2 years ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Yes, Ben-Gurion, the avowed atheistic "prophet" of the militant Zionist movement is a globalist who influences the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.

    • Gordan Zunar profile image

      Gordan Zunar 2 years ago from New York

      In your bio it says that you'll offend everyone at some point. I was really interested in what would offend me and after I went through the long list of your articles, I finally found one!

      Even though I agree with you outlining the atrocities that were committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, I have to say you either totally forgot, or deliberately left out, the governments that were/are as brutal, and yet religious, or founded on religious principles. I won't even go into what the Holy Inquisition did during Medieval period, or what the European conquistadors (who were all swearing to God) did when they invaded America (the long history of slavery conducted by religious people), or Henry VIII in the name of Anglicanism, or slavery under Ottoman Empire, or the pogroms conducted by the Russian Tsars, alongside Christian Orthodox Church, but I will skip right to Hitler, who maybe wasn't much of a believer himself (or he believed that he was god), but he definitely respected Christianity, and atheists under Nazi rule were just as much persecuted as Jews, gays and disabled people. Should I then mention the atrocities committed in the Balkans with the blessing of both Catholic and Orthodox Church (on two opposite sides though), the wars we have in Middle East over religions, the ISIS whose whole purpose is based around setting up a religious state and who opposes any secular form of government (they are killing their fellow Sunni Muslim Kurds because the Kurds are pro-secular).

      We also had some atheist leaders who did not oppress their own people, like Tito in Yugoslavia, current French president Francois Hollande, current Uruguayan president Jose Mujica, and many others.

      So, you gave three arguments against atheists. How many counter-arguments did I give?

    • profile image

      Chad Van de Wettering 2 years ago

      I would like to give my two cents, for a big point that I think is missing from the article. Apologies if it has been brought up before, but I don't have the time today to read all of those prior comments.

      One huge factor: Atheism does not define a person; and if it does, it does not define absolutely, and it does not define identically.

      All atheists are different people. Every, single, one of them. The blanket of "atheism" does not result in a uniform creature with mirrored beliefs, moral values (or lackthereof, as your article stresses), and political preferences. My argument for saying so? Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism- all major religions, most minor religions, have a code of doctrine, a universal law that must be followed by all adherents to be a "true" follower of the religion. And even so, these religions produce wildly different people with wildly different views on life.

      Atheism, on the other hand, has no global doctrine. It is, in nature, the absence of any global doctrine. I do not regard myself as an atheist- because that would imply that I denounce any and all possibility of a higher power. I, personally, do not care enough about whether there is one or not, because that would not impact my life in any sense. All atheists are different.

      Meanwhile, following a church (I'm using the Catholic Church for my example here) that has a history of banishing its own peoples, slaughtering and exiling Jews, Pagans, and Muslims, breeding discontent and hatred to reach their own ends, and of struggling against monarchs across Europe in the endless pursuit of power (something, I believe, is discouraged by the namesake of Christianity), seems to be less than unwise.

      These atrocities, vicious as they may be, were never committed in the name of "No God!" You can find examples in history of such, certainly; but these were not. Your examples do not prove a thing, besides how horrible these people were. But their religious beliefs were not the sole cause of ANY of this. Political struggles, pursuit of power, bloodlust, and countless other causes could be examined. Simply because three atheists, who presumed they could control other people with their political prestige, murdered and enslaved so many people does not mean all atheists would do so, or even a few. This article proved nothing other than something we already knew: Stalin, Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot were bad people.

      Don't try to make this a battle. It doesn't matter what you believe. My best friend is a truer-than-true Christian, who doesn't go to church, who doesn't say grace, and who doesn't sing hymns. But he follows the teaching espoused by Jesus Christ, and that is what Christianity is- not a following of the church, but a following of Christ. This man (my friend) also believes that government should be abolished, and that all forms of social interaction should be 100% voluntary- that nothing should be forced. I've met atheists who believe all gays and foreigners should be thrown out of the country, I've met atheists who find pleasure in killing. You know what? I've found Catholics and Muslims who are the same.

      Do not make this matter about religion. This matter *is NOT* about religion. It is about faith. It does not matter what you believe, or what you're told to believe (ie. hereditary religion), or what have you. What matters is how you interpret those doctrines and beliefs; what matters is how you act, how you treat yourself and others, and how you view life as a whole. Having religion means following a figurehead, or several, and adhering to their pre-established doctrines. Having faith- faith in humanity, love, happiness- means taking the initiative and establishing your own doctrines. Had these three men faith, the world would be looking much different.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 2 years ago

      Both China and Russia practiced one thing in common. The mass arrest of millions to create a prison Industry to privately build there empire. Now welcome to America currently the Worlds largest prison population in the World. They say the best thing about prison is that you always have a job.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 2 years ago from Ohio, USA

      Sanxuary , thank you for reminding us that figures lie and liars figure.

    • pramodgokhale profile image

      pramodgokhale 23 months ago from Pune( India)

      Sir,

      I am an Indian and my young age i had been impressed by progress of USSR and China.Later History of Stalin, Mao , we came to know that genocide of own people . They imposed their philosophy on people for the sake of power and not for socialism or classless society.

      These nations were controlled by handful people and spy agencies and highly restricted administration.

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 23 months ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Noam Chomsky says the west has killed more people than anyone. I don't agree with him on everything, but he has documented killings. The US is starting to be the baddest of the bad guys. And it is because of Zionism/Globalism. That multiracial cabal has started most of the wars this century for sure. And done the most regime change in the name of Zionism, which is a fake Zion. Real Zionist are established by God and the Messiah, according to both the Old and New Testaments. Even True Torah Jews, real followers of Judaism, know the Old Testament was not talking about Ben-Gurion when it spoke of the Messiah establishing the New Zion according to the prophets.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 23 months ago from Ohio, USA

      " And it is because of Zionism/Globalism. That multiracial cabal has started most of the wars this century for sure"

      What color is the sky in your world?

    • John Colarusso profile image

      John Colarusso 20 months ago

      This is literally stupid. Stupid is what stupid does and this is pretty stupid. Communism has never been truly implimented properly and Atheist are the least violent group out there. And gun control, ovee in europe it seems to work in america i don't think so. There are too many factors to know a real answer in america. However I am pro gun.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 20 months ago from Ohio, USA

      Communism wasn't implemented properly? You're implying that it *needs* to be implemented, which by definition implies that it is against the will of the proletariat. That sounds familiar...

    • John Colarusso profile image

      John Colarusso 20 months ago

      I believe that Communism is a good system and it has never been implemented properly. I think communism is fantastic, however people like Stalin have ruined the name of communism. Also people are too selfish for communism to work. I believe that the world should operate in more or less two ways.

      The first way being anarcist 100% free to do as you please, as long as it doesn't affect others in the process. You have to do everything 100% ON YOUR OWN to be allowed to do everything you want and must me almost entirely excluded from society.

      If you are part of a society and CHOOSE to do so you should be in a communist society. That way everybody is given the same chances same opportunities, and does the same work. More or less. In a true communist society the truly important are the ones rewarded. Those are educators, doctors, nurses, scientists, of course farmers. Everybody provides and helps.Education is 100% free, you are given the food you need to survive, stay healthy and nutrient. In a perfect communist society you have no government and everybody works together for the greater good of the people and the society as a whole.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 20 months ago from Ohio, USA

      Yes Communism is great. Stifle creativity, value productivity according to time spent (a hole dug in the ground has the same value as a poem), confiscate resources in the name of The State, and centrally plan everything.

      Can't wait.

    • John Colarusso profile image

      John Colarusso 20 months ago

      Communism much like capitalism has its down sides. In a perfect communist society everyone is given truly the same opportunity. It does not stifle creativity it can help enbrace it. In the "communist" societies we have seen censorship runs rampent.

      In a capitalist society the common man is given a decent amount of oppurunity. However can be plagued with several disasters destroying his luck. His parents could die. College debt. Fired for unjustice reasons. However capitalism is unfair and unjust. You can be born into a terrible situation. Money rules the game and you can get stuck working 60 hours a week for $7.25 an hour both giving you no time and no money to achieve many of your dreams goals or asperations. However things can go excellent and you can start from the bottom and work to the top. Which is good in theory your work is valued and how hard you work is what you earn right? The answer is yes and no because you can work hard at that 7.25 60 hours and get raises or promotions. However you can also not get rewarded. Or the lazier employee makes more than you but joined your work 3 years later when there are staffing issues and start off making double what you make, simply because they need the employees.

      Capitalism values the rich and stomps on the poor.

      communism values it alittle more giving everyone equal opportunities. When just about everyone is given the same and everyone's actually pulling their weight then you get a society that values hard work then goes home to value the arts or practice their own with the same chances as the next. Your creativity is valued like capitalism and changes with times and demand. However everybody is given those same resources and works just as hard as you do and gives you all the time you need to be creative and not fall behind everybody else.

      Capitalism sounds great in theory but all it does is damage society as a whole. Communism helps society and embraces hard work or at the least equal work.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 20 months ago from Ohio, USA

      "Capitalism values the rich and stomps on the poor."

      Completely wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.

      "Communism helps society and embraces hard work or at the least equal work."

      Communism shapes society, stultifies hard work, and removes all incentive for self-improvement.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 20 months ago from The Midwest

      " In a perfect communist society "

      There ya go. The "perfect" community society needs "perfect" people to make it work. And since there are really no "perfect" people then the powers that be have to start in tweaking it a little bit here and there... and more here and there... and even more here and there. And since people ~still~ are not perfect... well... then... many of them just have to go away somewhere out of sight, out of mind.

      And wouldn't you know it... in the process some pigs wind up more special than others.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 20 months ago from The Midwest

    • bgamall profile image

      Gary Anderson 20 months ago from Las Vegas, Nevada

      Nicom, you know Zionism is not Judaism. Why don't you come clean? You are a plant, IMO.

    • profile image

      Johnny 3 months ago

      When the people render themselves defenseless is when the government sweeps in to clear the lower and borderline middle classes. What you said is true, guns are the only thing keeping the US government from assuming dominance over the American public. As long as the people keep an eye on their government and keep them in check, a country can thrive. When they cross the fine border, people must either peacefully throw their government out and institute a new one or pick up arms and force them out. Remember, a government is only as strong as the people let them be, because we outnumber them a million to one. The people of this world need to wake up and realize this instead of fearing them.

    Click to Rate This Article