It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm a monster.....

page: 2
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
It is monstrous to let political programming override your capacity to be concerned for others.
Your unrealized fears for the future do not trump other people's real suffering in the present.

Here's how we handle these things:

1. A problem arises: people getting shot is a problem.
You do not scream what about me when people are getting shot.

2. If it's serious enough it dominates conversation and we start talking about how it happens and how to stop it: getting shot is that serious.
You do not scream what about me during a conversation about other people's serious problems.

3. If we think it looks solvable we start to draw up an actual plan to change things: This is a solvable problem. It does not exist in a comparable form in other developed nations.
You do not scream what about me while we are figuring out how to solve a serious problem.

4. We look at that plan and identify conflicts, drawbacks etc and discuss how to balance everything and make it work: That would be the time for you to say "what about me".

5. If we can answer the "what about me", then after a long inertia-fraught process designed to avoid you from suddenly finding yourself deprived of your rights as you fear, we can actually go forward with our plans to solve the problem.

6. If anything goes wrong for you then, you can go to court and get it undone.
Court is of course the place to not care about others and insist that it's time to solve your problem first.


Someone got shot, past tense... You want to stop it, put guns in more people's hands and teach them when and how to use them. That will stop the threat before it occurs.. Don't even START to talk about creating laws to prevent lawlessness... That is one of the most asinine arguments ever proposed.

More laws can NEVER stop lawlessness.

JAden




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together and try and love one another right now! LMAO!

:/ ~$heopleNation



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

nice, now what about taking it to the next level:

Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success. "Democracy in America" (1838)

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims."



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Helious

This has been a rough week for Americans, time to insert some humor

"I am a Monster"




edit on 27-6-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

When someone loses control of a car and kills pedestrians, do we ban cars? No. But we still mourn the victims.

When someone fires a gun into a crowded area and kills civilians, Do we ban guns? No. But we still mourn the victims.

What's the difference? Cars were not specifically designed to maim or kill a living creature-they are a mode of transport. Enough with the "actually" "however" or "Well..." Nobody in their right mind can deny the purpose of firearms.

"But they protect us..." so does buying a car that has side airbags and a maximum safety rating. Guns are designed to hurt, there is no denying that.


edit on 27-6-2015 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You just said that more guns mean less shootings, that creating something doesn't stop you from lacking it, and that my argument, which was actually just an elementary description of democracy and how you aren't the center of the universe, is asinine.

Let me ask you something, do you think that the second amendment is doing you any good? It's just a law after all. The army can come get your gun and cram your constitution down the barrel- but they don't- they probably WOULDNT right? Obama can't make them because other authorities can neutralize any dictatorial pressure he might attempt to place on the military. Well designed laws have deprived Obama of the opportunity to take your gun, even though he actually has the means and the motive, wouldn't it seem?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

Greetings, fellow monster.

Second line. S&F.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Nevertheless

Me thinks you've got that bassackwards there buddy... I think you meant European govts have no problem controlling their people since they don't have guns...

Jaden


Tell me. How does the, say, Finnish government, "control their people"?
edit on 27-6-2015 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Helious

When someone loses control of a car and kills pedestrians, do we ban cars? No. But we still mourn the victims.

When someone fires a gun into a crowded area and kills civilians, Do we ban guns? No. But we still mourn the victims.

What's the difference? Cars were not specifically designed to maim or kill a living creature-they are a mode of transport. Enough with the "actually" "however" or "Well..." Nobody in their right mind can deny the purpose of firearms.

"But they protect us..." so does buying a car that has side airbags and a maximum safety rating. Guns are designed to hurt, there is no denying that.



Very simply, nothing my friend can protect humanity from itself. Despite all of our technology and modern advances we remain without question a violent and imperfect animal that is at all times only one small step away from devolving into complete anarchy.

More over, the governments that seek to control such a monster are constantly looking for ways to leverage more control and power over the masses that hopelessly outnumber them to swell their pockets and retain said power. It's a never ending dance of control, checks and measures. The problem is this...........

Our government has shown itself to be incompetent of that kind of power. They have used the power they already have to wage countless unjust wars that have resulted in untold loss of innocent lives justified through false pretenses. They have invaded and conquered sovereign nations outside of the charter appointed to the federal government.

They have used our own tax dollars to impose tyranny on a level that is currently churning George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their graves. They do it in secret and when caught red handed somehow justify it without change.

They circumvent the Constitution by way of the Patriot Act and continue to uphold it despite the complete absence of domestic terrorism that isn't manufactured by the government itself. They continue to build the American gestapo by way of the DHS without any credible threat at the cost of billions of dollars per year.

This government is guilty of wholesale murder on a global scale in the hundreds of thousands in the last two decades alone and only ramping it up. Do you honestly wan't them taking our guns as well or can you intelligently defend why they should be allowed to do so?
edit on 27-6-2015 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Masterjaden

You just said that more guns mean less shootings, that creating something doesn't stop you from lacking it, and that my argument, which was actually just an elementary description of democracy and how you aren't the center of the universe, is asinine.

Let me ask you something, do you think that the second amendment is doing you any good? It's just a law after all. The army can come get your gun and cram your constitution down the barrel- but they don't- they probably WOULDNT right? Obama can't make them because other authorities can neutralize any dictatorial pressure he might attempt to place on the military. Well designed laws have deprived Obama of the opportunity to take your gun, even though he actually has the means and the motive, wouldn't it seem?


I apologize because I read this post twice and can't quite discern what your argument is. I'm not being obtuse, I honestly don't. Can or is it possible to abridge it for me so I can address it?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

As a simple matter of vocabulary, lawlessness is in fact reduced by the creation and enforcement of laws. As an example, the law has prevented your gun from being seized even by politicians who don't respect that law- you don't keep your right to bear arms by threatening people with you gun- the law has successfully prevented the need for that. The proper enforcement of laws against using guns in a criminal manner can succeed as well, better than the threat of more guns can. It won't be necessary to confiscate all guns but it will be necessary to accept the reasons for an armed populace defined in the constitution, which uses words like "organized" and "keep and bear" but says nothing of transfer, concealment, manufacture, unsecure storage, etc- providing a number of legal choke points at which we can force criminals to go to conspicuous lengths to obtain guns, causing a higher percentage of criminals to be caught without a body count. That's all anyone can ask- an honest effort at improvement within the bounds of our system. We don't expect perfect safety or absolute prohibition, and your side has no reason to oppose that, but is encouraged to by professional politicos who phase the debate in all or nothing terms because if this argument ever ends they'll be out of a job.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Helious

As a simple matter of vocabulary, lawlessness is in fact reduced by the creation and enforcement of laws. As an example, the law has prevented your gun from being seized even by politicians who don't respect that law- you don't keep your right to bear arms by threatening people with you gun- the law has successfully prevented the need for that. The proper enforcement of laws against using guns in a criminal manner can succeed as well, better than the threat of more guns can. It won't be necessary to confiscate all guns but it will be necessary to accept the reasons for an armed populace defined in the constitution, which uses words like "organized" and "keep and bear" but says nothing of transfer, concealment, manufacture, unsecure storage, etc- providing a number of legal choke points at which we can force criminals to go to conspicuous lengths to obtain guns, causing a higher percentage of criminals to be caught without a body count. That's all anyone can ask- an honest effort at improvement within the bounds of our system. We don't expect perfect safety or absolute prohibition, and your side has no reason to oppose that, but is encouraged to by professional politicos who phase the debate in all or nothing terms because if this argument ever ends they'll be out of a job.


I am in favor of a more controlled atmosphere for proper procedures when it concerns private sellers as often times they do not have to follow the same guidelines as "commercial" dealers of firearms. I am in favor of a safety training program before the issuance of firearms and I am in favor of any law that LEGITIMATELY affects the criminals from obtaining guns without infringing on the lawful rights of citizens who qualify to own them.

I am almost 40 now but was convicted for a financial felony when I was 17 and tried as an adult and as such am excluded by law from owning a firearm and you know what? I'm just fine with that because the Constitution provides clearly for that exclusion and that Constitution is the very foundation of the country that I love so I embrace that law and accept that the fault is my own to bear because I am not so arrogant to believe I know how to secure a free country better than our forefathers.

I however, would gladly pick one up again should it ever become necessary in the defense of the Republic and as it stands right now there are only two choices to the government.......... Attack the licensing restrictions and harass people on the federal and local level that most will be too discouraged to get a gun or change the Constitution itself.

The government and those that oppose guns are free to do what they like, through the proper channels as the law sees fit but this issue CAN NOT be "back doored" by things like executive orders that violate the spirit of the Constitution, Americans won't accept it and ultimately, it will lead to civil war.


edit on 28-6-2015 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
The issue of gun control is an issue that only our American cousins can decide for themselves but i doubt very much they will ever change the constitution on the right to bear arms, I'm not sure on how someone gets to carry a firearm but if you don't already need a supporting letter from your doctor confirming good mental health then that should be introduced asap also some form of psychometric testing and a mandatory gun ownership course should eventually make sure the right people legally hold weapons,
Illegal weapons is a tougher issue and sensible things like proper border controls to stop gun running and those using weapons in crime not seeing life from the other side of a prison wall should help but those backing a ban have to be realistic in that a ban will not stop gun crime but sensible approach to gun control is key to solving some of the pointless killings



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Helious

Agreed, and we've come a long way from don't care then, because avoiding the back door approach does of course mean accepting the democratic approach, which begins with making room for conversation about these problems.

Just as being deprived of guns without that process would cause gun owners to do whatever it takes, being deprived of protection from gun violence without that process will make the anti gun side do likewise.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I live in a society without guns, hence there's hardly any murders by shootings. America is a society with guns ingrained into it's culture, there's millions of guns, hence massive amounts of murders from shootings on a daily basis.

So, not allowing guns in society works, it's undeniable.

The problem is, it's too late for America to disarm itself, way too late, it's really a mute discussion, I don't like guns but if I lived in America I'd most likely need one and own one, so I wouldn't live there. What else could anyone have expected from a country founded on the rooting tooting wild west? Keep your guns, America, you need them, as does any sick society.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0rbital
I live in a society without guns, hence there's hardly any murders by shootings. America is a society with guns ingrained into it's culture, there's millions of guns, hence massive amounts of murders from shootings on a daily basis.

So, not allowing guns in society works, it's undeniable.

The problem is, it's too late for America to disarm itself, way too late, it's really a mute discussion, I don't like guns but if I lived in America I'd most likely need one and own one, so I wouldn't live there. What else could anyone have expected from a country founded on the rooting tooting wild west? Keep your guns, America, you need them, as does any sick society.



You're completely wrong as evidenced by your first sentance.

You most certainly do not live in a society without guns, it's just the only people that have them are your government. I don't know what country you are from but it probably didn't originate from people taking their rights back from tyrannical government by using...... Guns.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Helious

That never happened anywhere. All manner of things have been done with guns, but I can't think of a single time that armed civilians on their own defeated their own army and established a free country in the wake of tyranny.

You as an American are of course referring to a tax revolt that happened in the middle of a world war- one in which a foreign government stepped up to provide more modern military weapons, training and naval gun support to an army that had won virtually no battles up to that point.

The that Wal-Mart shoppers and their 12 gauges have anything to do with protecting liberty is a little ridiculous. Ultimately the only guns that matter politically are the ones that can be moved supplied and coordinated towards a goal- which means in America as in Europe the citizens are utterly unable to individually defend themselves from tyranny by force.

They are however capable of defending themselves politically. The American revolution wasn't about farmers with hunting rifles firing as the British passed thru their town. The fact that the Colonists were capable of raising an army, making procurement for it, and getting it to hold together far from home with little hope of victory, and soliciting assistance for it abroad is far more relevant than what the individual soldiers left home with when they first joined.

In so many words, a gun in the hands of a private citizen in a residential neighborhood is a bigger threat to him and his neighbors than it is to a tyrants army... Which would presumably just roll up in an armored car and set your house on fire without a fight if it ever came to your neighborhood at all.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Helious

That never happened anywhere. All manner of things have been done with guns, but I can't think of a single time that armed civilians on their own defeated their own army and established a free country in the wake of tyranny.

You as an American are of course referring to a tax revolt that happened in the middle of a world war- one in which a foreign government stepped up to provide more modern military weapons, training and naval gun support to an army that had won virtually no battles up to that point.

The that Wal-Mart shoppers and their 12 gauges have anything to do with protecting liberty is a little ridiculous. Ultimately the only guns that matter politically are the ones that can be moved supplied and coordinated towards a goal- which means in America as in Europe the citizens are utterly unable to individually defend themselves from tyranny by force.

They are however capable of defending themselves politically. The American revolution wasn't about farmers with hunting rifles firing as the British passed thru their town. The fact that the Colonists were capable of raising an army, making procurement for it, and getting it to hold together far from home with little hope of victory, and soliciting assistance for it abroad is far more relevant than what the individual soldiers left home with when they first joined.

In so many words, a gun in the hands of a private citizen in a residential neighborhood is a bigger threat to him and his neighbors than it is to a tyrants army... Which would presumably just roll up in an armored car and set your house on fire without a fight if it ever came to your neighborhood at all.




But it did happen. It happened when America was born. There was not a "world war" when America was born and I am assuming the foreign government you are referring too is the French which supplied about as much support as we did to al-qaeda to destabilize Iraq or as much as we provided ISIS to destabilize Syria.

French troops didn't win the war, American troops did. You seem to imply that our revolution was nothing more than a common revolt that was ultimately won because the French government won it for us and that is not only completely wrong but an affront to all of the Americans who died making this nation possible.

One county unified in America could hold off the entire state police force. And dissent and insurrection can happen very easily, the civil war is evidence of that. There were no government forces that could just stave it off because the majority of the country were so divided there was no "legitimate government". Those in power, in the military and the police force were just as divided as the citizens of the country.

I think you will find that same divide when talking about the second amendment.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0rbital
I live in a society without guns, hence there's hardly any murders by shootings. America is a society with guns ingrained into it's culture, there's millions of guns, hence massive amounts of murders from shootings on a daily basis.

So, not allowing guns in society works, it's undeniable.

The problem is, it's too late for America to disarm itself, way too late, it's really a mute discussion, I don't like guns but if I lived in America I'd most likely need one and own one, so I wouldn't live there. What else could anyone have expected from a country founded on the rooting tooting wild west? Keep your guns, America, you need them, as does any sick society.


And you can keep your slavery and defenseless life against criminals. Your population is much smaller than ours, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

What you can't comprehend from your subjugated point of view, is that here in the USA the criminals will always have guns whether they are outlawed or not.

So your just stuck with extremists butchering one of your soldiers in broad daylight, where over here there is at least the chance that someone can defend themselves from even a lunatic with just a knife. ~$heopleNation
edit on 29-6-2015 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

Well yeah any American rebellion that did not include the U.S military siding with the citizens would be nothing but suicidal.

It would be a long and hard gorilla Iraqi type resistance that could only hope for some kind of future compromise. It would surely be chaos without a doubt. ~$heopleNation




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join