Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

page: 19
26
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kituwa
reply to post by SeesFar
 


Try this on for size.

Notice to all criminals:

The Mayor of your city has just given you a green light to rob, steal, loot, rape & kill. Cops on vacation until you turn in your guns.



That's more the way I took the message.

While I wish no ill on the people of New York City, perhaps Bloomberg should run a pilot program of his plan in his own city. Then he could poll his constituents in a public venue to see how that worked out for them, publish his findings and then other Mayors could decide if they wanted to try it in their cities and towns based on actual data obtained from that social experiment.

I have a dollar that says Bloomberg would not be Mayor anymore ... and that would be his BEST possible outcome.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
On the other hand, giving criminals carte blanche to do as they please until all law-abiding citizens turned in their guns would create .... what? And is that somewhere we, as a Nation, would want to go?

How many law-abiding citizens *would* turn in their guns in order to stop the carnage? How many would realize that turning in their guns would NOT stop the carnage?


Sure we could go there.

Excluding non-violent offenders and perpetrators of crimes without actual victims or even pre-crime style criminals the percentage of actual violent, hostile and dangerous people is very low. In the single percentages low.

Complete lack of law and any enforcement does not chaos make. I would wager that chaos is too difficult to maintain very long for even the most violent and dangerous of that small percentage.

This fear of anarchy is irrational. History has no evidence that a lawless society is "lawless" as fiction tells it. In fact history is bountiful with stories of groups creating havoc and governments destroying lives and civilizations. Not individuals without law. Sadly we'll never know because the fear rules the lives of so many and offers the most sadistic humans a means to establish control over many others ala institution of government.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Sure we could go there.

Excluding non-violent offenders and perpetrators of crimes without actual victims or even pre-crime style criminals the percentage of actual violent, hostile and dangerous people is very low. In the single percentages low.

Complete lack of law and any enforcement does not chaos make. I would wager that chaos is too difficult to maintain very long for even the most violent and dangerous of that small percentage.

This fear of anarchy is irrational. History has no evidence that a lawless society is "lawless" as fiction tells it. In fact history is bountiful with stories of groups creating havoc and governments destroying lives and civilizations. Not individuals without law. Sadly we'll never know because the fear rules the lives of so many and offers the most sadistic humans a means to establish control over many others ala institution of government.


Agreed; historically it has worked. And while I agree with you that it would not last long, it would be incredibly violent and especially in certain parts of the Country. Those parts, unfortunately, have the most stringent gun laws and, therefore, there would be a lot of innocents left as more or less sitting ducks. Sadly, the phrase "collateral damage" came to mind as I typed that. But I believe the sad reality is that if we are to have any hope of righting this Country, there will be collateral damage.

However, a society without laws has not worked without a firm network of a strong social censure in which all voluntarily participate and, more importantly, actually believe in. We (the Native Americans) did not have "laws," as such, but we had strong customs that were observed and significant consequences depending upon the offense if the customs were not observed. Want to be a wanton wh*re? The women would see to it that you would do so with your nose notched or the tip cut off - then everyone would see what you were. Want to commit rape? That's your call, but if the women let you live and if the Clan let you stay, you would have to try your next offense without a very vital part. There was order and hierarchy within the Clan - the lowest (the lazy) would be provided for but their social standing was embarrassingly minimal - they were, at best, tolerated as a necessary embarrassment. They would not be left to starve but they did not have everything handed to them, either. The greatest (the best hunters, the hardest workers, the most virtuous women, the wisest) had the best social standing but that was often achieved not only by their industry and honorable actions, but by how much they gave away.

George Copway (Kahgegabowh), an Ojibwa Chief, likely stated it best: "Among the Indians there have been no written laws. Customs handed down from generation to generation have been the only laws to guide them. Every one might act different from what was considered right did he choose to do so, but such acts would bring upon him the censure of the Nation.... This fear of the Nation's censure acted as a mighty band, binding all in one social, honorable compact."

Even among the Europeans who invaded this Country and eventually turned it into "theirs" and what it is now, there was, initially, social censure. STRONG social censure. Where did it go? Who so willingly gave it up? Social censure was the web upon which Nations grew and societies flourished for thousands of years and look what has happened in the less than 100 years since it was given up.

It is my personal belief that we have descended into the liberal-minded, moral trash pit that is now our Country (and people) because we traded social censure for limp laws.

Would resultant carnage make people re-think social censure? Would it change their minds on what is acceptable and what is not? We rid ourselves of public hangings for convicted criminals and gave them life sentences, instead, and crime soared. We stopped expecting people to pull their own weight and rewarded them food, shelter, etc. and now they EXPECT it. Take it away and they will rise up.

There is an answer out there. It will not be a pretty one. True what you said about fear. Specifically excluding our active military and Veterans, we have become with a few exceptions, a nation of cowards. I know we have non-military men who are not cowards, but how many? I see far too many "men" who are afraid of their own shadows.

Do we have enough real men left? Do we have enough women with the courage to be a woman and do a woman's job while letting a man do his job? Neither is good long without the other; but, paired properly, a man who knows his job and a woman who knows hers makes a team that is nearly unbeatable.

Let's say, for purpose of discussion, that our Country "went there." How long would it take? How do you think we could re-implement social censure if we were to do away with laws and bleeding hearts?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Maybe this group of young street thugs would have thought twice about beating a Washington DC gay couple if the gun laws there were not so strict.

Knowing for a fact, they have no protection, makes anybody an easy target.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly


All these people arguing that we should control cars, because they also kill people are missing the point.... a car is not designed to kill, it is not it's prime reason for being made.... therefore the argument is foolish....


The argument is not foolish, the argument is right, your point is the foolish one because you don't want to accept the fact that banning firearms will not do anything to deter some people from killing people...

If anyone is determined to kill others, there is really nothing you can do to stop them, sort of having EVERYONE in each nation be subjected to psychiatric evalutation every year... Which would be next to impossible for many reasons...

Not to mention that even if you ban firearms CRIMINALS will get their firearms, including guns illegally... Criminals in the UK do it... Criminals in New York, and Illinois do it, two main cities with the most crimes in the U.S....



Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
I have no real problem with people owning Hand guns... albeit I am from the UK.... but please.. can you give me some valid reasons for a normal everyday person to own an assault rifle such as an AK47... I cannot think of any.. and it is the proliferation of these type of weapons that makes these mass shootings easier to perpetrate.

PA


How about you ask the people in Switzerland why do they need REAL military weapons, some which are completely banned in the U.S.?...

Then TRY to find out why the crime in Switzerland is so low...

Then, also TRY to find out why there are no supposed killing with guns when EVERYONE age 18 must join the military for 2 years, and afterwards they can leave and take the MILITARY WEAPONS with them...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Look, here's the bottom line about what the 2A is around for. Many people fought the greatest military on the planet fighting for their freedom. They fought to toss away what was viewed as a tyrannical government. One of the biggest reasons for the 2A in the BOR is to inhibit that situation from happening again. Do any of you really think that the framers of this country wanted some of the very people we are supposed to be protected from to be allowed to inhibit the peoples access to said defenses? If you answer yes you must not understand this country or just don't care. The 2A was not added just to help us with the occasional strung out B&E guy. It was also supposed to be there to allow the people to ensure that no one or no other group...Even our own government be allowed to enact laws allowing for Tyranny ever again. Just as much as it is there to allows the people the means to protect their homes and families from criminals
The only reason any in our government wishes to create laws limiting the 2A is to enable them to have more power over it's people. It's really just that simple.

Maybe if it wasn't so hard in certain areas to defend ones self some of these bad things would not happen. So many of these crazy gunmen pick targets where it is less likely for them to get shot back at. It makes me wonder just how crazy they are. It seems self preservation still is working pretty well for them.

As far as what other countries think..I really don't care. And I shouldn't have to. They have their own things to worry about and it's none of my business. I think it's nothing short of criminal to be able to jail a person that is fighting back a criminal. But that is the case in some other places on the globe. It's not my problem, I don't live there so I really don't think about it much. But I will think about it here. I am not a mass murder but I own weapons that some have used in actions such as this latest incident. Should I be punished for something I did not do? Not one of my firearms has been used in a crime. And I'm not some whacked out cowboy or gun nut. I'm a collector and I do enjoy shooting. I've killed many a paper target, pop bottle, and occasional old computer parts ( old hard drives make great targets!). I practice at some pretty long distances because it's challenging and I enjoy it. Now, if I choose to pop that target with a 22 rifle or a Barett 50 cal rifle what does it matter to anyone? Come punish me when I do something wrong. Until then I see no reason to hobble my interests in these matters. Nor should there be laws that allow the ones I see as being oppressive make the laws that oppress me.

Oh, and on the car thing?[sarcasm] Yeah, you can see it as too much when you make a car that can go 140 when there is no place to legally drive it that fast. So, then I guess one could say it was designed to be dangerous. I can see no reason to have a vehicle that can create that kind of power so it can be used as a weapon to kill innocent people. [/sarcasm] Not really, a car is a tool. If you misuse it then it becomes dangerous... Just like a firearm. You can't say guns are just made to kill. If that was the case then what did I do with the thousands of rounds of ammo I've shot? Same as 99+% of responsible gun owners. It can't be because I'm a bad shot. I mean I can hit a bull with my 03A3 at 600 yds without a scope. It's just that I have not misused my firearms...Or my vehicle.





new topics

top topics
 
26
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join