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.

 

Why the left hates individual preparedness/rights

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Liberals are freakin' nuts dude.


I think this is imperative to understand!

While many may mean it solely as an insult, the disconnect from a relatively common reality is a serious deal.

Up until recently (the past decade or two), the opposing "sides" simply had differing opinions on the same common topics. Overall perspective, approach, and reaction were roughly the same.

Now, it appears to be the same on the thinnest veneer of a surface, but it has dramatically changed. Since it has happened to a meaningful percentage of the population, it becomes reinforced and accepted rather than examined and questioned.

The victim mentality has become so embedded that nothing else is known, much less considered, and that leads to certain expectations. One being that solutions to issues must 1) align with the overall narrative (relatively conscious) and 2) actively reinforce expectations in the results (relatively subconscious).

All of it is the new face of conflict, and one that we better get used to in order to prevent a spiral into a society where there is no common ground between social groups whatsoever.

Its one thing to have varying opinions on the same subject, but a much different one when perception and reaction itself have no ability to relate or find commonality between social groups.

A good example is the perceived "twisting" of statements, tweets, etc. from Trump. This is not a conscious decision, its an inevitable result without awareness. Certain pathways have been nurtured and established that will only process the words in a very specific manner. In other words, such folks genuinely believe what they are saying. Regardless of veracity, this is reinforced by having large enough numbers to appear rational.

No longer is it about stances on common topics, but reaction to any given stimuli. Some may have seen a bit of this when there is cohesiveness and consistency across many, many seemingly disparate topics and conversations (to the level of oddity). Yet, to those that are mired in it, it seems its everyone else that is off their rockers because of reaching a critical mass of the population with the same programming.

The left side of the political spectrum may have been the initial target, but to establish this as the new face of conflict and "MindWar," it will require at least one other group to be conditioned in the same way. Even worse, this is much easier to accomplish with subsequent groups.

TL;DR: This specific topic is a result of the widely known victim mentality. However, it has long surpassed conscious (or even subconscious, really) decision making and turned into expectation. In that, any calls to action from legislation to protest will be based in meeting that expectation and continuing it. Instead of approaching problems with solutions that are actually relevant to "fixing" said problem, the entire process is about re-affirming expectations. Its not a good thing.




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: jimmyx


As I'm certain the "right wing" enjoys being told the same by the left...

Perhaps it would be wise for "both sides" to stop putting words in others mouths, or attributing ideas/thoughts to individuals that never expressed said ideas or thoughts.




Why would we do that on the internet?



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It's beyond me how anyone would still trust the government to take care of their individual needs after thing's like Katrina and Huston.

They couldn't get water to a stadium full of victims in a flood!
I make damn sure to be as self dependent as possible. That includes my right to self-defense.

If you are anti-gun in essence you are pro-gun as it takes gun's to disarm people of theirs. Therefore you are pro public sector gun's and anti private sector gun's.

Interesting that...



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980
It's beyond me how anyone would still trust the government to take care of their individual needs after thing's like Katrina and Huston.

They couldn't get water to a stadium full of victims in a flood!
I make damn sure to be as self dependent as possible. That includes my right to self-defense.

If you are anti-gun in essence you are pro-gun as it takes gun's to disarm people of theirs. Therefore you are pro public sector gun's and anti private sector gun's.

Interesting that...


Amen to that


The government is the single most incompetent entity that's existed, IMO. It is simply too large, bureaucratic and diverged much too far from its intent. It needs to be reigned in, drastically. And we won't reign it in by surrendering the very weapons/tools they fear.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


No it doesn't, our murder rate is merely 5.5/100,000. Places like Honduras are around 45/100,000

Canada is half of our number, but only has 1/10th our population.

Keep in mind these numbers must scale. We have a massive 330,000,000 people living here. What works in Canada or Australia certainly won't work here. Scale up Canada's numbers to our population, and you'd see a whopping increase in crime. We're to the point in this country where we actually have generational criminals.

Maybe it is because we criminalize every activity under the sun, I do not know. I do know that criminalizing yet one more form of "pre-crime" is absolutely the wrong answer. We punish people after they commit crimes, not before. Although you're all welcome to arm yourselves and prevent the criminal from harming you, it is your right as an American.
edit on 2/23/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: JAY1980
It's beyond me how anyone would still trust the government to take care of their individual needs after thing's like Katrina and Huston.

They couldn't get water to a stadium full of victims in a flood!
I make damn sure to be as self dependent as possible. That includes my right to self-defense.

If you are anti-gun in essence you are pro-gun as it takes gun's to disarm people of theirs. Therefore you are pro public sector gun's and anti private sector gun's.

Interesting that...


Amen to that


The government is the single most incompetent entity that's existed, IMO. It is simply too large, bureaucratic and diverged much too far from its intent. It needs to be reigned in, drastically. And we won't reign it in by surrendering the very weapons/tools they fear.


Exactly. You could let the government manage the Sahara and in two months they would be out of sand, and in dire need of funding to locate more...



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
LMFAO, and the OP thinks folks on the left are the whiny crybaby snowflakes?

Man up & pull the lace panties out of your nethers, put the tampon in & take a Midol, Suzie, the sky ain't falling.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Liberals are idiots. It just cannot be explained any better than that.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot


No it doesn't, our murder rate is merely 5.5/100,000. Places like Honduras are around 45/100,000

Canada is half of our number, but only has 1/10th our population.

Keep in mind these numbers must scale. We have a massive 330,000,000 people living here. What works in Canada or Australia certainly won't work here. Scale up Canada's numbers to our population, and you'd see a whopping increase in crime. We're to the point in this country where we actually have generational criminals.

Maybe it is because we criminalize every activity under the sun, I do not know. I do know that criminalizing yet one more form of "pre-crime" is absolutely the wrong answer. We punish people after they commit crimes, not before. Although you're all welcome to arm yourselves and prevent the criminal from harming you, it is your right as an American.


In what way is Honduras a comparable country to the US. It's one of the poorest countries in the Americas and recently had a coup.

Amongst developed nations the US has by far the highest homicide rate.

Why would population size matter to rates of crime? Can you show any evidence of correlation between population size and crime rates?



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
JBurns, you are trying to use logic, facts and reason when conversing with liberal. It's kind of like talking to your dog about quantum physics.

a reply to: JBurns



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

"They would rather everybody become a VICTIM that has to be rescued by the government."



One word..... free stuff from the government, ie, housing, food and or food stamps, money for cell phones, cabs to shop and go gambling and to pick up BEER...

Well, that's more than one word, but hey, who's counting



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Instead, the shooter was permitted to continue their onslaught unchallenged. To present a credible challenge to an active shooter, you must be armed. Period.



Yes teachers and staff should be allowed to carry, remove gun free zones.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Making people dependent on the government by all sorts of means and deception is not a new thing. The Liberal democrats are using this policy quite readily. The people lose out because of this action eventually, this was taken to extremes throughout US history, centalizing food and calling this factory farming safer, and deceiving people to believe that what you grow at home is not as good as what is found in the stores. There is no doubt in my mind that these people want complete control over us, making sure we cannot fight them with weapons. They want all the control over weapons and also all guns so we can not shoot our own food. These people want big restrictions on us fishing too, because us being self sufficient is not in their best interest.

This practice is not just American, it is world wide.


with thanks to Supertramp:
"Right, (quite right), you got a bloody right to say aaa ay ee"

You're damned right, not just right Rick. Star that one up folks!



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
I just want to try and understand your point of view. I can place the distrust towards the government and big business. I can understand your fear for potentially losing your fire arms.
What I don't understand is why you seem to think that having your personal fire arms is going to stop aforementioned from doing *anything* they like. What haven't they already done that you could've stopped with your gun?

Seriously, you are woefully underestimating your enemies. Keep clutching while they take over


I would offer this.
A big thing people from outside the US forget is, in order to beat England twice, we had to use guns. Basically the US took on the old money Oligarchs of Europe until the industrial revolution. The old world order ones who were FOR slavery and had all the money and land. They want their American property back, I am sure. Now it seems their great grand-kids are the New World Order.

Sometimes, as in protecting a President of your country, you just have to use weapons or the Pres or other important people get whacked. Unfortunately, evil people don't have a label on their clothes we can all tell from a distance they are nutjobs.

The facts are we have issues with people thinking your stuff was theirs on this planet. When thugs, be they MS13 or as in some country's Gov agents, come for your things or to harm you or rape someone, they don't want you armed. Armed victims means the thug can get hurt and so many of them are weasel types who will find a softer spot to land.
edit on 23-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ScepticScot
Murder "per capita". Murder by what? "Per Capita"? Murder, is murder! Guns are not a reason, anymore than being choked to death by a good necktie.
What easy access? Tell me, how easy it is to get a "legal" "gun" in The USA?
Anything else, is "illegal".
So are you speaking from experience? Or are you just parroting what you have heard?



Murder by capita = murder per head of population.

The US has far higher rate than any comparable country.

Are you really denying that it's easier to get access to a firearm in the US than in other developed countries.


We have the very highest rate because of the so called War on Drugs that enables thrill seeking drug fueled punks to get rich quick. They literally fight for territory just like the Mafia do in the movies. They wear colors to tell who they belong to and it is a big problem in some places like Chicago (Sheetcago to some).

I would vote for legalization of a lot of the stuff and provide help to the addicts who want it like we handle the gamblers. If they just want to go about stoned all the time, fine if they can't hurt anyone else. But I would hope we could find a way to get them to stay with other stoned people or go some where to "dry" out and not work it out here among us until they sober up.


edit on 23-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980
It's beyond me how anyone would still trust the government to take care of their individual needs after thing's like Katrina and Huston.

They couldn't get water to a stadium full of victims in a flood!
I make damn sure to be as self dependent as possible. That includes my right to self-defense.

If you are anti-gun in essence you are pro-gun as it takes gun's to disarm people of theirs. Therefore you are pro public sector gun's and anti private sector gun's.

Interesting that...


Great post!

The fact of the matter is the anti gun people are for ONLY the gov having them. Can't escape that fact. Let's see, how many times now has that worked for the citizenry?

Some will say look Britain doing it now but the verdict is out. The Nazi's started by appealing to the logic of the Deutsche population. Many were hungry for a better life and allowed Adolf to take power and didn't understand what they had done.

I believe Hitler was like Stalin and a Socialist/Marxist only difference for Nazism was adding the 'nationalism' spin. In that type of society an unarmed helpless populace was to the crippling advantage of the control freaks and murderer types.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Absolutely, large inner city crime rates vs. rural area.

Still want to argue population size/density doesn't matter?

Regardless, a mere 5.5/100,000 is nothing. Especially compared to other ways we die. Saving lives starts in tackling problems like obesity, smoking, fast food, drinking, distracted driving (cell phones), etc. None of those things I mentioned are a Constitutional right, and all kill far more than ALL murder combined (guns are only used in a FRACTION of all murders)

Yet, the left wants to target the one thing that IS a Constitutional right yet has the least impact among ALL the other issues I listed. So since we know this isn't *really* about saving lives, I can only assume the push for gun-control is to allow government hegemony over the use of force/violence - something the Constitution simply doesn't permit.

Firearms (military ones) are required to pose a credible threat to a tyrannical domestic threat or foreign invasion. They also make defeating criminal/terrorist threats much easier. There is no legitimate argument to remove firearms.

1) hundreds of millions already exist, unregistered/unknown/many intentionally cached 2) criminals always find a way to get them/make them/steal them and 3) you wouldn't like the result of turning tens of millions of gun owners into criminals overnight.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times, my guns have nothing to do with what some thug criminal decides to do with them. Start rounding up gang members or keeping a better eye on mental health issues, I really don't know what to tell you. Either way, liberty has a price as we see time and time again. Often that price is pretty damn high. But always worth it. Always will be.

Franklin said it best: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for mere temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There are plenty of "safe" countries out there, though. UK/Australia/etc. But this isn't one of those places. We aren't subjects. We're Citizens in a Constitutional Republic. The government exists primarily to uphold our constitutional rights, and if they aren't going to do that properly then what purpose do we have for them?

Thank goodness nobody is trying to cherry pick your Constitutional rights though. You, yes you! You may have an abortion, but only by a Doctor named "Fred" wearing a polka-dot jacket on Tuesdays from 4:30pm-4:41pm. How's that sound to you? Does it sound "fair and reasonable" or does it sound like whoever wrote that law is *actually* trying to persuade you not to exercise your right?

Now lets try this one... "shall not be infringed..." What does this mean to you? Does it mean "Infringe whenever possible and apply needless regulations?" or does it mean "do not infringe under any circumstance." To me, this is obvious. Yet our anointed "judges" and lawyers have yet to figure it out.. "Shall not" is pretty clear to me, though. See that? You don't need a big expensive Ivy league legal education to have a clue after all.

Or how about the first amendment? Well, you have free speech. You can't publish anything negative about the government though. And you can only tell the truth if it shows the Trump administration in a good light. Does that sound very "Free" to you, either? It sure wouldn't to me....and I'm a Trump voter.

Just think it over..

Everyone, and especially the federal government, needs to keep their grubby little greedy hands off our Constitution.
edit on 2/23/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
...and please don't tell me the second amendment doesn't apply to military/automatic weapons. Those who act as though "the musket" was the only firearm to exist in the founder's time are simply misinformed.

Not only did "machine guns" exist, but explosive ordnance and other weapons were quite familiar to the founders - they used these types of weapons to defeat tyrants. Twice.

en.wikipedia.org...

Puckle gun

This wasn't the only advance in technology, but struck me as particularly relevant given its patent date: 1718 (well before our founders were even born)

Additionally, gun laws do NOT have a lawful basis in the United States. Up until 1934, no gun laws existed and our nation got on just fine. Regardless, the argument that the second amendment is outdated is simply untrue. It always envisioned our firearms remaining up to speed with current develops, seeing as the founders surely realized that would be the weapons said hypothetical tyranny would also procure.

The 2A is a bulwark against oppression or invasion, and is the ultimate guarantor of our civil rights - ALL civil rights.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError
Spain has gotten quite authoritarian over the years, especially with laws against recording law enforcement and media censorship. Germany, Netherlands and Australia have all suffered nasty attacks on public places with people dead in the last decade. I suppose .... sometimes # just happens?







 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join