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.

 

On the matter of gun control, isn't it time to agree to disagree?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
We're all sick and tired of going in circles and the left/right battle, but all opinions are out in the open because you still have that liberty. I respect anyone's opinion as long as it isn't some half-baked concept being parroted by everyone who thinks firearms are the problem.

I'll agree that tighter measures need to be taken to keep guns away from unstable individuals, but you also need to agree that any attempt to ban and confiscate guns in America would spark Civil War II. Think too many people are dying now? The Civil War was the deadliest and bloodiest in US history. Americans are pretty damn good at killing each other when it's over an issue they're passionate about. You'd have divided families, just like the first civil war. A lot would flee the country, and then the real problems would begin. America would be destabilized and vulnerable enough to be invaded. Sounds crazy? Why wouldn't they strike when we're at our weakest and spread too thin?

Most people who are against firearms are feeling helpless and angry because they've already realized there's no possible way to ban and confiscate all guns. It's a no win situation, so with nothing left to say they resort to the clever insults and calling gun owners 'cowards'. And the endless merry-go-round lures in more and more as it keeps going round and round. I don't see it ending any time soon, do you?




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaltyRibeye
a reply to: ~Lucidity


Well a civil war wouldnt last long at all since lefties tend to dislike guns.

Theyd bring slaps and hair pulling to a gun fight.

I believe it would be a good thing, the nation could use some cleansing of leftists.


Cleansing. Nice. Seig heil, dude.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: seaswine


We've now argued it back and forth for weeks and haven't found this definitive answer. So let's, in the name of good faith and community, agree to disagree??


I'm just going to agree - it's easier

Anything to avoid getting myself shot


And that demonstrates, in a few words, why nothing can be achieved. Because so many on both sides can't do anything other than resort to wildly hyperbolic speech at the very mention of gun rights or gun control.

Maybe once people put their big boy/big girl pants on and keep them on, something can happen.

Till then, we're stuck with oh-so-witty gems like this.


And the oh-so-witty gem like the one above. Which is worse? Those just wanting to stay safe or those who want to kill other Americans, among others they lump into one group based on the action of a few?

I'm thinking, well hoping, those who alredy have their big person pants and are in the vast majority eventually have enough and find their voice and put an end to this BS.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
People always want to talk about the bad side of firearms, they never want to talk about all the lives they have saved. I will never be for taking away peoples right to defend themselves. No other tools allows people to have a force equalizer like firearms do.
Instead of talking about banning everyone from owning a firearm, we should come up with incentives to get people to be responsible firearms owners like they should be.

I think states should require people to take a basic handgun safety class. Allow local Sheriff office to issue 30day waiver for people who can prove they are at risk of being attacked or harmed. My state requires residents to take a hunter safety course before you can purchase a hunting license. The course is FREE to residents, states could do the same thing with a handgun safety class.
I think it's time handguns come with a security lock box. Having a handgun stored in a lock box would do more to keep guns out of kids hands. People wouldn't have an excuse for not having a lock box to store it in.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5thNovember
If you live in America, and want to restrict guns, you are nothing but a traitor to the countries ideals and should have your citizenship revoked, same goes for every other article and ammendment. Don't like what America was founded on then you don't belong simple as that.


You going to revoke that citizenship with a head shot or what? What's your plan?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


And that demonstrates, in a few words, why nothing can be achieved. Because so many on both sides can't do anything other than resort to wildly hyperbolic speech at the very mention of gun rights or gun control.

Maybe once people put their big boy/big girl pants on and keep them on, something can happen.

Till then, we're stuck with oh-so-witty gems like this.


:-)

Doesn't help that all the crabby, humorless people are fully armed

___________________________________________________

Hit a nerve did I?

Humor is often truth

Is my discomfort and fear something you would rather I keep to myself? Should I just shut up?

Tell me, if I put my big girl pants on - what would I say that would be different? That would meet with your approval?

It is what it is Shamrock - deal with it

I'm a gonna say what I'm a gonna say

:-)

edit on 10/7/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Jimmy! :-)

You made my day Kosmic

And yeah - laughing. If not now - when?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The words 'common ground' and/or 'agree to disagree' have come up several times in this thread.

Without taking a position on the firearms legislation debate (on this post anyway...I do have a position), I think there are a couple things worth noting.

'agree to disagree' - On the one hand I guess this spirit would contribute to better decorum, but it does nothing to help resolve the issue. It only pushes the discussion below the surface to fester until something else happens to re-ignite the debate. Then all the suppressed emotion and vitrol quickly rises to the surface again in an even more hostile exchange. No, I believe we do have to keep the discussion up on the table. I think if we fail to do this then there is a real possibility at some point the anger on both sides of the discussion could very well lead to violence of some sort. Not to mention the possibility of political action in the absence of public input (which is a very bad thing indeed, regardless of which direction).

'common ground' - I do agree on this front, but this is a tall order (understatement of the week). The problem as I see it is we have so many people participating in this debate who argue from a completely uninformed emotional starting point...on BOTH sides! Some of the arguments / statements I see people post here and elswhere are ridiculous beyond comprehension, completely devoid of rational thought or reality. These statements only serve to inflame the discussion to the point where rational, informed, people become irrational. Then there's the haters; they have a position, they're going to state it, they're not going to even remotely consider any counter-point and are just going to hate on anyone who disagrees. These individuals are counter-productive...again, on BOTH sides.

I believe (perhaps in my perfect world) in order to bring this matter to semi-closure we have to look at some overall statistics. I am of the firm belief, of the entire data set of people who have an opinion on the matter, better than 70-80% of these people are not at the extremes of the debate. The furthest of the extremes will likely never be satisfied, no matter what the solution is. I think the 70-80% is where you have to begin the discussion. However, before you begin you have to do something more (maybe more 'perfect world' stuff, but you have to start somewhere).

Before you can have an objective discussion on anything BOTH sides of the discussion need to be informed about the other side's position. In other words, anti-gun people need to be educated about guns and pro-gun people need to be educated about gun related crime. This is key. Those who refuse to participate in this education must, unfortunately, be removed from the discussion. This will drop the overall percentage, but it will still represent the vast majority. But wait, there's more...

In order to have a healthy debate on the whole gun issue you also need to remove government, PACs and NGOs from the discussion. Government in this country presently, regardless of which party is in charge, is hopelessly broken (which is another discussion altogether) and will only convolute the discussion itself and any real solutions reached.

Both sides of the discussion must understand some basic realities:

1. Those with a anti-gun leaning posture must understand, firearms will never be fully eradicated from the general population. Firearms will never be outlawed completely...not in this country, and certainly not now. To believe otherwise is unrealistic. They must also understand acceptance of this for the sake of common ground is for the greater good of all.

2. Those with a pro-gun leaning posture must understand the fundamental underpinning of the discussion is not intended to be an infringement of their rights, or an attempt to pile on further legislation, but an honest effort to cross a rubicon of huge proportion to find common ground. They must also understand this common ground is for the greater good of all.

Then, when the discussion is complete, a plan must be drafted to implement what has been agreed upon. From there, BOTH sides must stand united and bring this plan to the government and say "This is the plan, and this is what you will implement, no changes, no bureaucratic meddling, no pork barrel back room deals...this plan, and only this plan!"

My .02



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The issue is not gun control.

The issue IS Impulse Control.

It isn't hard to figure out the examples people emulate when it comes to impulse control, just turn on your TV.

The latest example I witnessed of this example of impulse control which impressionable people may emulate is the movie "John Wick".

Now somebody's car is going to get stolen and their dog get's killed and they will go on a spree of veangeance and kill everyone who was directly and indirectly involved in an event that is relatively inconsequential.

Or they can be mature about it and file a claim for the car and go to the pound and rescue a dog from euthanasia.

Which is more impressive in the eyes of most?, to get even or move on?,....
edit on 7-10-2015 by MyHappyDogShiner because: bibbledy



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
One other thought...food for thought maybe.

ANYONE involved in the whole gun debate must understand there are people on BOTH sides of this debate who believe VERY passionately in their position. Snotty, snarky and sarcastic remarks from an opposing viewpoint do absolutely NOTHING, but make things worse. They serve no constructive purpose. These kinds of comments may seem fun or funny to the commenter, but I don't believe in most cases these people understand the full gravity of their statements.

To use an analogy, comments such as these are akin to a stranger making a snarky or insulting comment to a parent about their child. Some may think this a foolish analogy, but it really isn't. A parent is very protective of their child no matter what. Even if their child is wrong they are still going to defend them, and certainly against a perfect stranger. People sometimes forget the subject matter of the whole gun rights discussion is equally important (in many respects like a child) to people who feel strongly about the matter. Some anonymous person on the internet (or in person for that matter) making a snarky comment about the gun debate (regardless of which side) is often not taken with any humor at all.

Something to think about



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

This is true, but you have one side in denial about this and jumping to the other, easier, path as a solution. Convincing folks of this is likley 9/10ths of the battle.

You could even distill your statement down further (and maybe this is what you meant anyway); you could construe "impulse" not so much as committing an act, but enacting some rule, law, legislation as a 'knee-jerk' reaction so as to "appear" to be doing something, without regard to long-term consequence.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
This article talks about mass shootings, gun free zones, mental illness, Chris Harper-Mercer, and why liberals can't and won't address the reality of the situation.

canadafreepress.com...

I agree with everything everything they said. Mass shootings almost always happen in gun-free zones and the perpetrator is almost always taking meds. Liberals love gun-free zones and push for more of them everywhere, because for some reason they think that making a public space where everyone is unarmed won't turn them all into victims, somehow. I also agree that you never see mass shootings in gun stores or at target ranges, where people are armed.

Then they point out that most of these mass shooters are on meds. It was the liberals who pushed to get the mentally ill out of insane asylums and then give them meds instead of counseling. Keeping mentally ill people who are a threat to themselves or others locked up, was deemed inhumane. Now they are free to roam the streets as long as they are taking meds. Thanks for that.

They also show that despite the left's attempts to cast Harper-Mercer as a right-wing conservative, or even as a white supremacist, one of his parents was black and he is of mixed race, that he supported Black Lives Matter, and that he idolized Vester Flannegan, a black supremacist who shot two white reporters. He was a member of the Marxist Irish Republican Army. This guy was a dyed in the wool left-wing extremist. But after he died hackers changed his social media profiles to make him look conservative and even altered pictures of him to make him look more white.

Why do they do all of this? Because if the left realized that their beliefs in no way coincide with reality, that creating zones where people are unarmed creates victims, that giving the mentally ill meds and setting them loose as free citizens who can buy guns creates predators, that "social justice" groups like Black Lives Matter or Marxist groups like the Irish Republican Army don't promote equality and in fact create violent fanatics, would only shatter their world view and make them realize that everything they believe in is completely and fundamentally wrong. So they use hackers and lies and propaganda to demonize conservatives, people they sarcastically call "normals" (oh the irony).



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner




The issue IS Impulse Control.


Yes. It is. The question here is this. Why is it such an issue these days?



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5thNovember
If you live in America, and want to restrict guns, you are nothing but a traitor to the countries ideals and should have your citizenship revoked, same goes for every other article and ammendment. Don't like what America was founded on then you don't belong simple as that.


I am having a real hard time with this post, my ancestors have been in North America since 1621, they have owned slaves, and lost members on both sides of every war we have fought up to Korea. History is sometimes a harsh reminder of how things used to be. America was founded on slavery in our Southern States, Indentured servitude everywhere, misogyny, women were not allowed to vote and in some states not allowed to own property, no religious freedom, do you actually know that the colony of Maryland was founded to give catholics, that were not welcome anywhere else, a place to call home, and probably the most serious, the crime of genocide. My ancestors involved in all of it. The ignorance of the quoted post is beyond belief, and lies at the base of most of the problems in this country. Until these types of ideas are no longer accepted, we are one step closer to 1861, and I honestly hope I do not live to see that point. Those that don't learn history are bound to repeat it.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
This article talks about mass shootings, gun free zones, mental illness, Chris Harper-Mercer, and why liberals can't and won't address the reality of the situation.

canadafreepress.com...

I agree with everything everything they said. Mass shootings almost always happen in gun-free zones and the perpetrator is almost always taking meds. Liberals love gun-free zones and push for more of them everywhere, because for some reason they think that making a public space where everyone is unarmed won't turn them all into victims, somehow. I also agree that you never see mass shootings in gun stores or at target ranges, where people are armed.

Then they point out that most of these mass shooters are on meds. It was the liberals who pushed to get the mentally ill out of insane asylums and then give them meds instead of counseling. Keeping mentally ill people who are a threat to themselves or others locked up, was deemed inhumane. Now they are free to roam the streets as long as they are taking meds. Thanks for that.

They also show that despite the left's attempts to cast Harper-Mercer as a right-wing conservative, or even as a white supremacist, one of his parents was black and he is of mixed race, that he supported Black Lives Matter, and that he idolized Vester Flannegan, a black supremacist who shot two white reporters. He was a member of the Marxist Irish Republican Army. This guy was a dyed in the wool left-wing extremist. But after he died hackers changed his social media profiles to make him look conservative and even altered pictures of him to make him look more white.

Why do they do all of this? Because if the left realized that their beliefs in no way coincide with reality, that creating zones where people are unarmed creates victims, that giving the mentally ill meds and setting them loose as free citizens who can buy guns creates predators, that "social justice" groups like Black Lives Matter or Marxist groups like the Irish Republican Army don't promote equality and in fact create violent fanatics, would only shatter their world view and make them realize that everything they believe in is completely and fundamentally wrong. So they use hackers and lies and propaganda to demonize conservatives, people they sarcastically call "normals" (oh the irony).


While I will agree with much of your post, if you replace "liberals" and "the left" with "some people" your argument would have a whole lot more impact. People are tired of labels, I am a pretty hardcore liberal, and nothing in the above post that you have attributed to liberals or the left, applies in my life in any way. I am pretty sure folks are tired of the left/right, liberal/conservative labels as well, maybe the first step is to remove those labels from our conversation. To paint a large swath of folks with the same brush is at best a misnomer.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner




The issue IS Impulse Control.


Yes. It is. The question here is this. Why is it such an issue these days?


No stats, just opinion. The way kids have been raised, the devaluation of human life due to constant exposure to death. I whack byatches online all the time, has never crossed to my personal life, but I have a life and responsibilities outside of the computer.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join