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.

 

Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Sure.

Focus on incidents where guns were legally purchased.

Ignore incidents where guns were illegally purchased.

Agenda?

Heck, yes


Correct me if I'm wrong, but all guns at some point were legally purchased, whether by a store, a government, or an individual....correct???

I am not aware of any gun manufacture that illegally releases guns from their factories. If this is true...then there are bigger problems than anyone has imagined.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There are illegally purchased guns available just about everywhere - but these are most commonly the result of theft from legal gun owners.

Again, if some politician wishes to sponsor a bill making it a crime to improperly secure guns - thus making them easier to steal... that I would happily support.

~Hefff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Now your getting it!
He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.
James A. Garfield



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Sure.

Focus on incidents where guns were legally purchased.

Ignore incidents where guns were illegally purchased.

Agenda?

Heck, yes


Correct me if I'm wrong, but all guns at some point were legally purchased, whether by a store, a government, or an individual....correct???

I am not aware of any gun manufacture that illegally releases guns from their factories. If this is true...then there are bigger problems than anyone has imagined.


Sarcasm duly noted.
If I have to explain the differences to you then someone has taken your identity and that person is myopic.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I think that most second hand guns are sold because of hardship and are bought in the first place through fear.
Theft would be secondary.imo



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Purchasing second hand would still be legal ( if all forms are submitted and whatnot ) OKS was referring, I believe, to unregistered "street" guns - the bulk of which are stolen - though some are smuggled into the country.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

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.


In the quote you gave of Obama, he was making a general statement on the issue...he wasn't proposing legislation or suggesting that vague language be used in any legislation.

I don't see the need to worry about something that hasn't even been proposed yet...especially worrying about the semantics and unspecific language used when making general comments on a hot button issue.



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"


What is considered overexposed?

These aren't everyday and common events, people usually don't walk into movie theaters or temples with guns in this country and randomly shoot people. The recent Texas A&M shooting I would say is different...this doesn't seem to be a planned or targeted massacre...I'm not exactly sure what it is...but in my opinion it still represents the threat that we all face with guns being so prevelant in today's society. Do you think that cop left his house that morning thinking that he was going to serve an eviction notice and have to be concerned with being in a shootout over it???

In my opinion, these are important issues...issues that we should have a rational discussion about. And we are going to have the two sides using these events to push their agenda. With Aurora you had liberal media quesioning our gun laws and the fact that Holmes was able to get so much in so little time...all while under the care of a psychologist. And you also had the conservative media suggesting that it was the lack of gun carriers in the theater and the theater's no gun policy that allowed Holmes to shoot so many people.

One side is arguing that the prevelance of guns is the problem, the other side is arguing that the lack of guns is the problem...but both sides are making their arguments and using these events to push their agenda.

I don't think it is correct to only call out one side when both are clearly involved.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Any thoughts on the effect that the doomsday speculation has on mental health/shooting incidence?

I worry that as things get more contentious in the coming months local violence will increase due to stress and gun control will become a necessity similar to the Patriot Act following 9/11.

And will the Media sacrifice ratings to reduce stress? Never.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

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

Yea sorry about the detour.
IMO mentally deranged could very easily be spun to mean anyone that posses or wishes to posses an object that could be used for fear mongering or fatalities.
When you take a look at the history of msm reporting on such violence it then can become clear that an agenda is being pushed through the hypnotized masses of american sheeple to obtain a level of fear and control.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

In the quote you gave of Obama, he was making a general statement on the issue...he wasn't proposing legislation or suggesting that vague language be used in any legislation.


No, it's not a proposition of legislation. But it was a public statement and you and I both know that within 24 hours pollsters and the President were discussing the statement in their decisions about future policy.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

I don't see the need to worry about something that hasn't even been proposed yet...especially worrying about the semantics and unspecific language used when making general comments on a hot button issue.


Agreed to an extent. But any good sailer watches the horizon and stays aware of which way the wind is blowing.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

What is considered overexposed?

These aren't everyday and common events, people usually don't walk into movie theaters or temples with guns in this country and randomly shoot people. The recent Texas A&M shooting I would say is different...this doesn't seem to be a planned or targeted massacre...I'm not exactly sure what it is...but in my opinion it still represents the threat that we all face with guns being so prevelant in today's society. Do you think that cop left his house that morning thinking that he was going to serve an eviction notice and have to be concerned with being in a shootout over it???


Where you and I seem to differ here is on the problem itself. I do not see guns as the issue - but mental health concerns, lack of support in the US for the ill, and high stress levels as trigger mechanisms ( and, yes. there are others - it's also a common news story for a man to murder wife - and or family - upon finding out the wife wants a divorce - etc ). Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people. If the James Holmes guy wouldn't have had guns, he'd have just gone to Wal Mart and purchased any number of household cleaners with which to make bombs with - had he been so inclined. He proved the knowledge of this in wiring his apartment to blow-up. No guns needed for that and the death toll might have even been higher.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

In my opinion, these are important issues...issues that we should have a rational discussion about. And we are going to have the two sides using these events to push their agenda. With Aurora you had liberal media quesioning our gun laws and the fact that Holmes was able to get so much in so little time...all while under the care of a psychologist. And you also had the conservative media suggesting that it was the lack of gun carriers in the theater and the theater's no gun policy that allowed Holmes to shoot so many people.


And, a rational discussion we are having now because of it. No?


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

One side is arguing that the prevelance of guns is the problem, the other side is arguing that the lack of guns is the problem...but both sides are making their arguments and using these events to push their agenda.

I don't think it is correct to only call out one side when both are clearly involved.


If I have shown partisan or issue bias, other than to wanting my Second Amendment Rights upheld, show me where, and I will correct myself as it was not intentional.

~Heff
edit on 8/14/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Purchasing second hand would still be legal ( if all forms are submitted and whatnot ) OKS was referring, I believe, to unregistered "street" guns - the bulk of which are stolen - though some are smuggled into the country.

~Heff

I see your point but i ask how many people report a gun sold,stolen(specially when you know who stole it and you would rather call it a loss even though your supposed to report it) or will admit to selling it for drugs on a bad day?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Actually that tables something I totally overlooked in my OP... The link between Drugs and gun violence.

Oh, and BTW... that is part of the trap because drug addiction definitely falls under the heading of "mental" issues.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I wonder how many guns are laying next to drugs right now?

Either prescription or non.
It goes back to the thought that if you own guns you are a bad person and if you have drugs you are a bad person.


Let me be the first to welcome all gun owners to the mental health racket.
edit on 14-8-2012 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



No, it's not a proposition of legislation. But it was a public statement and you and I both know that within 24 pollsters and the President were discussing the statement in their decisions about future policy.


True, and I believe that it was a deliberate decision to keep the statement and language general as to not commit yourself to anything nor to offend/implicate a certain segment of the population.


Where you and I seem to differ here is on the problem itself. I do not see guns as the issue - but mental health concerns, lack of support in the US for the ill, and high stress levels as trigger mechanisms ( and, yes. there are others - it's also a common news story for a man to murder wife - and or family - upon finding out the wife wants a divorce - etc ). Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people. If the James Holmes guy wouldn't have had guns, he'd have just gone to Wal Mart and purchased any number of household cleaners with which to make bombs with - had he been so inclined. He proved the knowledge of this in wiring his apartment to blow-up. No guns needed for that and the death toll might have even been higher.


While that is true, there has been more regulation passed on the sale and tracking of chemicals known to be able to create a bomb (thanks to the oklahoma city bomber). The thing with bombs is that as a society, we already have decided...people shouldn't have bombs.

So if in the case of Holmes, he would have made a bomb and thrown it into the theater, we wouldn't be having the conversation of "should bombs be more strictly regulated" we would be having a conversation of "why did our current regulations and tracking fail".

But he didn't use a bomb, he used guns. Lots of guns with lots of ammunition...guns that aren't really designed for hunting...they are designed for killing or maiming as many humans as possible in a short amount of time. So naturally the conversation we are having is, or should be, "Are our gun laws correct?"..."As a society, are we doing the right thing?".

The mental health issue is a different issue to discuss, in my opinion. It's a much more difficult conversation to have because we are forced to single out a group of people...which means we have to define that group of people...and as you have already noted, that is very difficult to do.


And, a rational discussion we are having now because of it. No?


Indeed



If I have shown partisan or issue bias, other than to wanting my Second Amendment Rights upheld, show me where, and I will correct myself as it was not intentional.


I don't believe you have shown partisanship, but you did seem to suggest in your OP that the media wants to keep these stories on the air to push an agenda of gun control.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

If, as my above source indicates, potentially 30% of us are directly diagnosable, in this nation, as having a real "mental disorder"... then how far does one have to stretch the definition to raise that number to 40%? 50%?



A proposal to classify happiness as a psychiatric disorder [Journal of medical ethics]

It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system.


This could turn out to be a relatively insignificant non-issue though as many indications seem to suggest that "happiness" in the US is in rapid decline and could become virtually non-existent in less than a decade.

edit on 14-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
NAMI Mental Health in the Military

Mental Illness costing military soldiers

This thread got me thinking about mental illness and the US military. The links above are a few articles that I found on google.

An interesting find was a 65% increase in discharges due to mental health from 2005-2009.

I thought it was relevant here because of the overall conversation relating gun violence to mental health. There is a question that is maybe overlooked, mental illness is certainly a factor of gun violence, but is gun violence a factor of mental illness as well? It's probably fair to say gun violence and mental illness perpetuate one another.

Also, an article correlating low income with mental illness: Low income associated with mental illness

Low income areas are notoriously associated with gun violence.

The situation in America is as follows: economic recession leads to increased mental illness, alongside a society that is firearm obsessed (too far?).

Trends: increase in mental illness, increase in gun ownership, increase in media coverage of violence, decrease in government trust (leading to further increases in gun ownership and mental illness, while also hurting the economy as stock market generally follows public confidence). Snowball.

Perfect storm for violence, how do we reverse trends? Increased local political participation and community building first, addressing superfluous gun ownership second.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Ofcourse there is an agenda going on. It's the Disarming of America agenda. A totalitarian dictatorship seeking absolute power cannot seize power and hold it unless the citizenry has been disarmed. We're seeing a return to the Dark Ages, except in modern times. With a disarmed populace we are nothing but peasants in a modern feudal society, and the worst thing is, the criminals who work with the black market will always have their guns, so the problem isn't being solved. That problem is we are too soft on criminals, when they should be getting hanged, we keep them on death row until they can be executed. People who go on shooting sprees need to be put down. Criminals abuse our justice system to the point our justice system is a cruel joke on the law abidign citizens. There is no justice anymore, the strong take from the weak, even their very lives and no one will stand up for the weak and for what is right.
edit on 14-8-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
This foaming at the mouth, defensive stance on some perceived "threat" to your gun collection is beyond fanatical.

Facts have shown us there are MANY unhinged, unstable people in the US. Therefore, not every joe/jane out there should be able to own a gun.

Let's stop beating around the bush and just say it, for humanity and civilization's sake, the time for stricter gun control is NOW.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I was not familiar with Wounded Knee...and from just a quick review of the material, it doesn't sound like "the people" stopped what they intended to with their armed occupation.

People were killed, a town was damaged, and yet the armed protestors sill did not succeed and in fact it sounds like it made things worse for the protestors and the tribal President became even more abusive with his powers.

So I'm not sure that this would qualify as an example of the people using their "arms" to protect against abuse of powers by the government...not to mention this was a tribal issue, not a United States government issue.


Not familiar with Wounded Knee? Really? Not with EITHER of the events that took place at Wounded Knee? If you think the one you just 'read' about was shocking, why don't you look up the first one - that outta knock your socks right off. Wonder what THEY, the first ones, might have done had they had any weaponry at all.

"NOT a United States government issue?" Who do you think put the Native Americans on Reservations IN THE FIRST PLACE with promises written in Treaties that have ever since been ignored, re-negotiated (without NA consent) and re-defined? It could not BE a bigger "United States government issue."

If your post is what you got out of even that short and inadequate synopsis of the event, then I believe your claim of "quick review of the material" was a grossly over-exaggerated one.

The Wiki article on the matter is far too brief; however, even it says "... they also protested the United States government's failure to fulfill treaties with Indian peoples and demanded the reopening of treaty negotiations" and "standing in defiance of the government which had so often failed them."

The point of the matter is that they DID stand their ground; they DID have the means to do it; they WERE standing up against tyrannical government - both Tribal and U.S. governments. And if it was a 'tribal issue,' as you claim, then why did the U.S. Marshalls, FBI, Senators, etc. show up? Even if you chose to ignore half of the issues of the protest, surely even you can see that their involvement MADE it "a United States government issue?

The POINT of the Second Amendment is about ABILITY and MEANS - without ABILITY and MEANS, no one can do anything. Since the U.S. hasn't had (yet) the unfortunate opportunity to provide many examples (or at least none that you seem able to relate to), let's look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (and if you're unfamiliar with that, too, then please look it up) - the Nazi forces were annihilating people left, right and center, but when they came to "liquidate" the Warsaw Ghetto, they got something they were NOT expecting: Armed with pistols, grenades (many of them homemade), and a few automatic weapons and rifles, the ZOB fighters stunned the Germans and their auxiliaries on the first day of fighting, forcing the German forces to retreat outside the ghetto wall. Just a FEW men with just a FEW weapons, held off and fought off wave after wave of the German ARMY for ALMOST A MONTH. Did they win? No; unfortunately, they did not because they did not have the weaponry at the disposal of the German Army. What if they HAD had equal weaponry? Do you think they would have won then? You can bet your life they would have because it was their lives they were fighting for.

Let that sink in for a moment - honor them by recognizing those brave men for what they did with limited means.

Now, go and truly educate yourself - look up how gun control was put in place in Germany and dig deep, deep and deeper until you figure out which group of people was the first to stand up and set an example by voluntarily turning theirs in.

If you (and others like you) continue to allow your own self-imposed ignorance keep you such a good citizen of the state of denial, the day will come (sooner rather than later) when you will loathe yourself for not listening and learning.

You have the right to lose all you have due to your intentional ignorance of history, but you do not have the right to take others down with you - and that's not "you" as in "Outkast Searcher" only; that's ALL of you who ignore history. History currently IS repeating itself and the only ones who do not see that are those who CHOOSE not to see it.

For the love of all whom you hold dear, turn OFF the television, REFUTE the false teachings and indoctrination of public education (through and including University level), STOP believing the media, dig into history and LEARN!
edit on 14-8-2012 by SeesFar because: to clarify something



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I'd love to see legal Guns in Northern Ireland.




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join