Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

There has been a definite spike in gun control related discussion recently, and the effect on policy will be interesting.

I think it's doubtful that the government feels any real threat from citizens with firearms. They have tanks, helicopters, jets, drones, all types of bombs and whatnot.

So, in my opinion the more likely motivation behind a potential increase in gun regulation is simply to reduce violent crime.

It is no longer a matter of protecting ourselves from the government, that's beyond possible. Repelling an invasion I could see as a better argument. For example if there were a significant number of Chinese nationalists planning a violent take over from within, Americans having guns would certainly help our cause.

But I don't see how some type of reduction in the number of firearms is not in the best interest of society.

Allowing impoverished urban neighborhoods to be run by violent gangs is highly oppressive and a form of tyranny in itself. The young in poor city areas are less equipped to fight tyranny than a community of educated individuals with no gun ownership.

Especially in the days of enhanced communication networks, it is the amendment of free speech that is superior in maintaining liberty.

With increasing reliance on communication networks, imagine the scenario where the electrical grid fails for a number of days or weeks. Would society then benefit from a high number of guns or suffer from it? It would then be the armed citizens who would threaten their neighbors with tyranny and government law enforcement as the buffer.

Who is more a threat to overtly oppress, the gun owning citizen or the government?

This problem of shootings boils down education, economics and community. It is not the federal governments job to improve a local community, but unfortunately aid policies reflect otherwise.

From your mental health PDF, in the ten recommendations to improve treatment gap:

3. Care should be shifted away from institutions and towards community facilities
4. The public should be educated about mental health
5. Families, communities and consumers should be involved in
advocacy, policy-making and forming self-help groups.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Not lobbied for but taken lobbing funds to get further restrictions on firearms and more than likely they will be turning their back on upcoming ammo regulations.
As i said it has been a give and take relationship or else i would have a non permitted silencer on my ruger 22lr now or a non permitted fully auto 50 cal...

reply to post by Hefficide


A very good observation OP.
What we are observing is like reading a script. And indeed it is. This latest shooting in Oklahoma, from what we know so far, was in response to the serving of an eviction notice. I'm guessing the guy had lost his job, maybe has a family to try to support, and nowhere else to go. The magistrate was just "doing his job" as ordered by the court. He (the shooter) probably was "depressed" over his dire financial condition. Backed into a corner he couldn't escape from, he took a stand. This is the greatest fear the PTB have. People taking a last stand to defend their liberty.This may be the tipping point that Van Jones advocated. Top down, bottom up, squeezed in the middle. In other words, as the economy continues to decline, and more events like this unfold, there will be ample "justifications" to control more and more of the population. Found a link, after reading your post and considering the source found it amazing. The script continues to unfold.

www.youtube.com...

Now, more than ever, we need to hold on to our constitution, and our guns.

S&F

reply to post by Hefficide

Whether or not financing an organization is "freedom of speech" or not is something a person much higher up the food chain than I would have to decide.

It has been decided.

I know there are people going to jail for funding "terrorist" organizations.

There is a difference between killing people and disagreeing with them.

reply to post by Golf66

Civil War 1860- 65 Whole lot of guns used to fight abuse of power by the Federal Government.

And what were the results of that? Did the 2nd amendment prevent any abuse of powers by the Federal Government?

Utah Territory 1857- 58 Whole lot of guns used to fight abuse of power by the Federal Government.

Utah is a State today...the Mormons didn't succeed in breaking off as a territory. Brigham Young surrenderd to the United States.



These are all examples of how even having the "right to bear arms" did not prevent the United States government from doing what they wanted to. None of these examples so far have shown how the people used the 2nd amendment to PREVENT the abuse of powers by the government.

reply to post by deadeyedick


When and where? I'm only aware of them lobbying for less and less gun control. They crucify ANY politician that wants the slightest gun regulation.

The majority of their funding comes from gun corporations which benefit monetarily from less gun control.

reply to post by MassOccurs

I think it's doubtful that the government feels any real threat from citizens with firearms. They have tanks, helicopters, jets, drones, all types of bombs and whatnot. So, in my opinion the more likely motivation behind a potential increase in gun regulation is simply to reduce violent crime.

Sorry that i don't agree with you.They are very afraid but our complacency keeps them safe.
They are one right move away from losing the battle that they started to gain control of the 2nd and all the spoils that go along with it.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Of coarse this would not be publicized but only mentioned by lunatics on a conspiracy site.
So at the moment it seems that i have no proof other than the laws on the books and pushes for more control.
Other than that common sense in being able to follow the lines of corruption its self should be enough for a mind of your stature.
If not then i concede all my points and bid you a good morrow.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
These are all examples of how even having the "right to bear arms" did not prevent the United States government from doing what they wanted to. None of these examples so far have shown how the people used the 2nd amendment to PREVENT the abuse of powers by the government.

Yes, because the victor in every instance is the one with the just cause.... I see the unjust cause winning the day more often than it should every day in the world.

Anyway - being out funded/gunned doesn't make one's cause wrong nor does it negate the fact that the purpose of the amendment was to allow for the people to fight for their rights.

No one has the right to win.

Only to fight.

Prior loses by the people do not negate the future right to fight back against tyranny. Perhaps in your experience you quit and throw in the towel completely surrendering to the tyrant - I don't.

reply to post by deadeyedick


Should clarify:

They don't feel threatened because of our firearms.

They feel threatened by the prospect of a movement originating in political theory, from free speech. They are more concerned with limiting the citizens ability to think than own guns.

reply to post by deadeyedick


The NRA has never lobbied for gun control. Stop making things up.

What laws on the books? The laws on the books are completely lax. It is extremely easy to buy a gun.

Who is starring your posts? You are peddling complete lies.

reply to post by RealSpoke


concessions!
As i stated in the start give and take.
I know you know that money talks.
Are you going to say that no nra lawyer has sold out or given one thing for another or just that right now i have no proof of this.

reply to post by deadeyedick


There are no gun control laws that are strong on the books......so no....the NRA clearly has been lobbying for less and less gun control. Who do you think got the assault weapon ban overturned?

GIVE AND TAKE
What future would they have leading the gun advocates if they only went against the gun advocates.
You are smarter than this i know because i have read alot of your post.
It's about the money.

www.americanthinker.com... _with_sep.html
www.ammoland.com... l-confirms-nra-sell-out/#axzz23UlHbbGJ
www.redstate.com... ls-out-to-democrats/
www.redstate.com... e-member-the-nra-sold-out-tell-an-adult/
www.nationalreview.com... close-act-and-nra-some-bad-news-hans-von-spakovsky
[url=http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/07/19/nra-gun-industry-once-again-mine-profit-from-paranoia/]http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/201 2/07/19/nra-gun-industry-once-again-mine-profit-from-paranoia/[/u
I'm sure you do know what a sellout is.

To interject:

Two main components of my OP are still tabled.

1) That the label of "mentally deranged" is dangerously ambiguous and can be interpreted in ways that we might not presently even imagine it could be.

2) That the mass media overexposing the populace to these stories ( running them incessantly for days on end - to the nth degree ) could really be spin... or by another name "conditioning"

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Sure.

Focus on incidents where guns were legally purchased.

Ignore incidents where guns were illegally purchased.

Agenda?

Heck, yes!

reply to post by Golf66


The purpose of asking for the examples was to establish if the right to bear arms is a deterrent to the government abusing it's powers.

There is no historical context that this is true and there is no logical reasoning in thinking that a vastly out armed group could be a deterrent to a group that is vastly superior. Thus using that as an argument is simply a Strawman as a justification of ones opinion and a dismissal of opposing arguments.

It is my opinion, that in this day and age, and knowing the weaponry that the government has...that owning guns does not serve as a deterrent to the government abusing it's powers. If they wanted to abuse their powers...they will do it...they have done it...and they are continuing to do it...owning guns hasn't stopped it and won't stop it in the future.

So we have had an appeal to authority, in which the authority has been proven to be wrong in the past. And then we had a strawman justification that owning guns is preventing the government from abusing it's powers.

So my question is, is there any true justification that gun ownership is the correct path for our society to take???

reply to post by Hefficide


2015, Second Grade Class

"I pledge allegiance, to my insanity,
and my capability for murder.
And to the republic, to keep us safe,
One nation, under God, who hates guns,
With liberty and safety for all."

reply to post by deadeyedick


Did you even read your links? They had to do with the 1rst amendment/money...that has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.

You claimed the NRA lobbied for gun control, now you link things that make them look bad. Common sense the NRA could care about anything other than guns and is a shady organization, it is a corporate GUN lobby. They lobby for less gun control in order to make money. That is their prerogative, not any other amendment or freedom issue.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


If the government chooses to carpet bomb say Galveston - then all the handguns, rifles, shotguns,and ( yes ) assault rifles in the world won't matter. But the likelihood of such an extreme occurrence is so remote as to be listed as, at least, highly improbable.

But ignoring that guns to help keep us safe from our enemies - there were at least four other reasons that the Framers felt we should be armed listed in the OP.

~Heff