ATS Street View 05: Gun Control and Jared Loughner

page: 3
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck


And besides.. is it really a bad thing drug dealers and gang members are killing themselves? I say let them.. it's usually contained to their neighborhoods, their people.

Yes, it is a bad thing. Neighborhoods really shouldn't be subjected to this sort of thing. Children and other people must live there for various reasons, and many end up killed because of some one else's problems or conflicts.

Anything I say on the matter is merely some jerk sitting on his ass in front of a computer pontificating, just to make that clear up front, because I don't live in any of those neighborhoods.

The problem is one of organization, lack of sense of responsibility for the neighborhood. A friend of mine once told me how bad things got in the Las Vegas hoods once 'organized crime' was booted, because that left only the 'dis-organized' criminals to run wild with their drive by shootings that killed and maimed indiscriminately, unheeding, and uncaring.

The gangs really should organize better, be a little more like a citizen militia, taking protective responsibility for their own neighborhoods. Something seems awfully wrong to me when pride of turf has been replaced by a sense of turf as 'hunting ground'. These are 'our people' they are not our 'prey'.

Martin Luther King Jr said it much better than I ever could.


www.americanrhetoric.com...
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
. . .
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

edit on 18-1-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This is just another way for the govt to rape our constitution even further...and the hilarious thing is that almost the majority of american people are ASKING for it! just like 9/11 ...OH NO we have been attacked by terrorists! please washington do something to protect us! take away any rights you please as long as we are protected from the evil bad guys,

These people are a bunch of moronic bastards. There is no way you can be fully protected from terrorism no matter what the govt does. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to do it. Everyone just feels good about their "Illusion of safety" here in america. We are not safe, nor ever will be. Anything the government does to take away our rights as a people claiming it is to "protect us" is a LIE. The real objective is to invade the privacy and strip the constitutional rights of people in the most subtle way possible while creating the "illusion" of safety. Congratulations on raping yourself america,

It will make me feel so good and I will be able to sleep at night knowing that there are stricter gun laws here...because a criminal and potential murderer is going to follow those laws right?...right?
Why don't we ban knives, swords, and bows and arrows while we're at it. give me a break.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The entire concept of Gun Control is a joke. Lets outlaw guns because criminals kill people with them. Give me a break. if a criminal doesn't care about the law, then why in the world would he care about a gun law? It doesn't make any sense. All any gun laws do is persecute the responsible gun owners.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hello,

Banning firearms will not solve the problem. Increasing legislation to accommodate such will only serve to create alternate forms of violence or increase alternate forms. The solution is "Emotional Responsibility."
Education on the destructiveness of negative emotions and how they propagate and influence society at large.

I realize this statement is probably an oversimplification but this truly is the solution. Awareness training an education on how to be an emotionally "healthy" individual would lead to less violence and greater collective cooperation.

So long MTV.


Edit: I should also add this means the END of all organized religion



edit on 18-1-2011 by Abovo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Its a terrible thought but for some perspective, as a slaughterman i can cirtainly attest that if armed with a couple of boning knives i could quite easily be just as effective taking as many lives as Loughner is accused of.

Here in Aus we have very strict gun laws following Australias worst ever massacre, a shooting spree in Tasmania supposedly by just one crazed gunman ( Martin Bryant) in 1996.

Now on the streets its just law enforcement and the crooks who are armed.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 



Interesting things to be considered before we all come to some "bad" reactions to banning guns... I'm saying this to all who want to ban them.
In countless tests, not just by me... In close proximity, say 20 - 25 feet, a person with a "holstered" knife will fare better, and be much deadlier, much more quickly, than a person with a "holstered" pistol.

Pont being, maybe we ought to leave the guns alone and ban the knives... Except those used for cooking, and buttering your bread, or perhaps cutting a prime rib to enjoy.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


So what you are saying is, that your state does not INFRINGE on you rights as an individual. Hmmmm, pretty cool, but we are working on it here in Wisconsin. You are not the only ones that believe in the US Constitution!


reply to post by Abductee001
 


What, is it REALLY that hard to take a rod stock of metal, drill it, create a trigger mechanism and then go out an cause mayhem? How bout I go upstairs and put together an inflammable IED?

Sorry, you cannot and will not EVER stop all the wackos. Tell me, if you remove the ability for EVERYONE to protect themselves, will it stop chaos?

reply to post by pthena
 


I once lived in the south side of downtown Minneapolis. My roommate was robbed for his bike, he was beat for just his bike. Now, if he had a gun to protect himself, would it have changed the outcome? We will never know. But one thing is for sure, since he did not have a gun, he was beaten within an inch of his life.

I would like to add this essay for people to listen to reason, this is the most succinct reasoning I have ever heard-

why the gun is civilization.
March 23, 2007



Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think the opinions on this issue depends whether or not you've grown up around guns. Personally I've never even held a gun or rifle in my entire life. I've never experienced hunting nor would I be interested in killing an animal. I've gone fishing, but that's about the extent of it.

This is just my perspective on gun ownership...

-I can understand owning hunting rifles and some handguns, but guns that can shoot multiple rounds in just a few seconds, why would the general public really need them?

-A three week thorough background check before owning a gun sounds reasonable. (It takes longer to get a background check for a passport than it does a gun).

-Someone who wants to commit a murder or a crime will always find a way to get a gun.

-Carrying guns seems like trouble waiting to happen. (What happens if someone goes to a bar and has one too many drinks and they get into a stupid argument with another patron? Their mind isn't thinking clearly and their temperament gets the best of them and they reach for their gun).

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
there is no way in hell the government will get the guns away from the citizens..maybe the coward ones? but not the ones that have ammo and weapon stashes.

how this will all end up is like iraq and afganistan, where IEDs will take the place of guns and there will be real blood in the streets. not just a random shooting here or there.

its coming, the governments has lost its ship and mutiny is abound



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I think the NRA will fight the gun restrictions generated by the Tucson shooting. The only thing i think might happen is the gun laws would become more strict. The talk about how if civilians have handguns with more than 14 rounds they want to kill people is completely OBSERD!!!! My father has a whole bag of about 20 mags, each holding 15 rounds, what are we going to do with them? Im positive where not going to get rid of them if the law or restrictions are approved. Soon i bet the government will ban storing firearms in soft bags or covers.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


This could be avoided with the T & W Community Counselor and an on campus Gun Club with a teacher as administrative support to the club. Further, the T & W Counselor would have spoken at assemblies and then followed up with the school's gun club. This shooter would have been spotted if he was a student.

If not, the adult model would hold, T & W Community Counselor is at council meetings, community centers, working with neighborhood watch and Social Services, et.al. Less and less of these people will slip through the cracks.

We can be more caring and concerned and manage our rights at the same time.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by angelwrangler
 


I believe this too, but I'm not sure it can be done through legislation. Indeed education may be the only way. About the only way government can help is not get in the way, in my opinion, of course.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons

-I can understand owning hunting rifles and some handguns, but guns that can shoot multiple rounds in just a few seconds, why would the general public really need them?


The general public needs them to shoot multiple rounds in just a few seconds. That's what they're designed for, and that's what the need is.



-A three week thorough background check before owning a gun sounds reasonable. (It takes longer to get a background check for a passport than it does a gun).


That's called "infringement". In NC, however, I go through background checks to get "purchase permits". Takes anywhere from a week to a month to do a check, then if all's clear, you go down to the Sheriff's department, and buy your permits at 5 bucks a pop (that's what the last ones I bought cost me, not sure if it's higher now) One background check per permit visit, buy an unlimited number of permits in that one visit, and they're good for 5 years. They call 'em "pistol permits", but you can use them in lieu of a NICS check for any sort of firearm.

See? They can just ignore that pesky "infringement" part of the Second Amendment already! At least here, we already have pretty thorough background checks. Somehow, the Bad Boys STILL get themselves armed. I dunno. I suppose if your willing to break the law to shoot a convenience store clerk in a robbery, I reckon you wouldn't mind ignoring a little old background check requirement. Heck, I bet the Bad Boys even ignore the "permit" process altogether!



-Someone who wants to commit a murder or a crime will always find a way to get a gun.


Right. It's just the rest of us who have to jump through these silly (il)legal hoops.



-Carrying guns seems like trouble waiting to happen. (What happens if someone goes to a bar and has one too many drinks and they get into a stupid argument with another patron? Their mind isn't thinking clearly and their temperament gets the best of them and they reach for their gun).


Carrying in bars is verboten here. I don't even go to bars to drink any more, I only go if I'm itching for a fistfight - which doesn't happen much these days.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rebel21
I think the NRA will fight the gun restrictions generated by the Tucson shooting. The only thing i think might happen is the gun laws would become more strict. The talk about how if civilians have handguns with more than 14 rounds they want to kill people is completely OBSERD!!!! My father has a whole bag of about 20 mags, each holding 15 rounds, what are we going to do with them? Im positive where not going to get rid of them if the law or restrictions are approved. Soon i bet the government will ban storing firearms in soft bags or covers.


I can't tell YOU what to do, but I'll ignore it. Last time we had a "high capacity ammunition feeding device" ban, during the mis-named "assault weapons ban", I made my own. I wanted a 45 rounder for my AK-74, so I made it since I couldn't buy it. BATF said that was fine with them, since I destroyed 2 30-round mags, and created a 45 rounder and a 15 rounder.

There's other ways to get what you need, and hi-cap mags will be floating around for years to come in the event of any sort of "ban".

If they ban 'em, and want mine, they know where my front door is. Come and get 'em.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Fairly predictable responses from NYC dwellers.
I find the entire premise of the interviews somewhat disturbing -
to phrase it slightly differently "Should we respect the Constitution, or just dump it?"

Only one person even came near to mentioning that we have the Right to Bear Arms in this country.
Rights are not negotiable.

Safety is never a sure thing in this life.
If you fear gun violence your best defense is to carry a firearm yourself.

The tragedy at Tucson might have been avoided had someone there exercised their right to carry one.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I would like to inject a little of my observations here in Arizona about Gun laws. I was born and raised in Western New York, made the move to NYC and now I'm here in sunny Arizona. I've never fired a fire arm until I moved here. It was a very easy process to get on a range. I walked up to a counter picked a gun, told the teller how many rounds I wanted to fire, showed my ID and paid. The whole process took under 5 mins. I did watch the 5 min "safety" video before I entered the range.. It was all common sense stuff like "NEVER point a weapon at something you don't intend to destroy".

Everybody is carrying here, which is why I suspect everyone is so friendly. When I was out looking for a car I went to several private sellers who where proudly wearing their pistols underneath their armpits. I could count on my hand the number of times I've actually seen a firearm growing up in New York and since moving here I've nearly quadrupled that number.

While doing research for the show I didn't notice that murder by firearm's were drastically lower in Arizona as opposed to NY.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


It's really simple. The reason they want to restrict gun control is the illusions that they've created for themselves. They live under an assumption of safety. When someone gets mugged and stabbed or shot, they think, that's the rarity it isn't going to happen to me. Realists, OTOH, like myself, think I better do what I have to to be able to protect myself if that becomes me.

They don't want to admit the truth that gun control doesn't make them any safer, because then they get their self imposed illusion shattered and they have to face up to the fact that their safety is ultimately in no one's hands but their own.

Jaden



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


As a matter of fact the gentleman who tackled Jared was carrying a firearm.

Link



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
gotta love how the first comment is somebody so ignorant that they think the guns are evil (and not the person using them to harm others) lol. I see this kind of attitude very rarely where I live (montana) because due to our lax gun control laws, and the fact that so many people have guns and permits to carry here we have very few gun crimes here due to the fact that criminals who would pull a gun on somebody are probably afraid to do so because there are so many people armed in the state...I can guarantee that if the federal government ever tried to ban guns or ammo, our state would most likely succeed from the US, and I'm sure at least a few other states would do the same such as texas and nevada and the like...guns are doing more for our protection from criminals than most of these liberal half wits are with their gun control laws

Don't tread on me
edit on 18-1-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II makes it fairly plain. "infringed" means violated or encroached. Militia is a force called upon in an emergency. Why are Americans keeping and bearing Arms so threatening, especially in being necessary to the security of a free State? We have generations of many former military keeping & bearing arms spread all over this nation & well trained in defending their homeland. I believe this fact has deterred foreign enemies from attempting an invasion. Given the Government's failure at protecting our borders and ICE releasing undocumented individuals from Iran, Afghanistan, and other nation states that have declared war on the U.S. into the general population, makes the Second Amendment an imperative. Last year alone 413 were released after being given deportation hearing dates for which they were a no show. Major cities are at major risk of being attacked, yet gun ownership is blamed for a small segment of their population abusing their Second Amendment rights. These issues remain for law enforcement & the court system to settle, and not infringe on the rights of the entire population. The job of the U.S. government is to make sure the States protect the Second Amendment, and the job of the States is to make sure cities, etc. protect the Second Amendment. Now the U.S. Government wants to control or regulate everything to its political agenda satisfaction. That is not it's job. Better to do its job of protecting the borders and the Second Amendment because Americans want to be able to protect their free State, homes, families...if the first line of defense fails. As far as the Second Amendment being old and needing updating...given the possiblilites of EMPs, Nuclear attack, Biological & Chemical attacks, Infrastructure and other societal breakdowns...we need this more than ever. So here it is in a nutshell: Leave the Second Amendment alone, we will probably need it sooner than later.





top topics
 
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join