Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

reply to post by Hefficide


I dont have time now to read every post,so if im repeating let me know and ill delete.
As someone from a country with tight gun control ive always thought that the US' seeming obssesion with fire arms a little unhealthy.
i no longer think this.
The patriot act is in itself an affront to anyone who wants to live with a certain amount of freedom from big brother style government interferance.
This NDAA legislation (which i only learned of thanks to ATS) is exponentialy more draconian and the sort of thing youd expect to be associated with the former soviet union.
This is a really frightening development, and it goes to show that no matter who stands for election americans really do only have the choice between a giant dou*che or a tu*rd sandwich.
which is no choice at all.
There is no doubt now,at least not to me, that there IS an insidious campaign by a government backed anti gun lobby to use tragic events to manipulate public opinion and take away your constitutional right to bear arms. Just like bush jr and his cronies used 911 and the so called war on terrorism to bring in the ironically named patriot act.
If you let them take your guns,or bring in psych evaluations which will essentially be a disarmament bill in all but name, then the US will be royaly scre*wed.
If ever there was a time to form a constitutional well regulated militia it is now.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Of course it it oppourtunistic. It is agenda driven.

Over 200 gun-related deaths in Chicago alone this year. Not a word. Not a peep.

A tragic event occurs in a movie theatre, a religious centre, and people weep.

Shooting occur DAILY in Chicago and . . . . . nothing. Nada. Zip.

I wonder why. . . . . . .

Wonder, indeed, Beezer. Why do so few see what is right in front of their face?

Even worse, our President states that Chicago Is an Example of What Makes This Country Great' "

Yet, "The Daily," two MONTHS ago, reported that "While 144 Americans have died in Afghanistan in 2012, a whopping 228 Chicago residents have been killed, and the murder rate is up a staggering 35 percent from last year."

228 dead in Chicago as of the date of the article (June 15th). But there were TWENTY-FOUR after June 15th; and there were 48 in July; and, so far, 19 as of August 9th, bringing the total for THIS year (up to August 9th) to 319, which far exceeds the number of Americans who've died in Afghanistan this year - by more than twice, actually. And, as you stated, 'not a word; not a peep' - at least not in the mainstream media where even those who can bear to turn off "Pregnant at 16" long enough to watch MSM in the (erroneous) belief that they are getting information can be informed of the truth.

For any who actually look at any of those links, take special note of the method by which those people were murdered.

What Chicago serves as is an example of is what happens when guns are taken AWAY from law abiding citizens and do nothing about those in the possession of criminals. Criminals are NOT going to abide by ANY laws and especially not by any gun control laws.

Chicago and surrounding areas have rendered the Second Amendment 'null and void' and stands as a shining beacon and THE best tangible, irrefutable proof of what happens as a result of taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding.

reply to post by SeesFar


Well said (also the analysis of Wounded Knee )

This is agenda-driven and sadly, the people are eating it up. The truth is right in front of their faces if they really chose to look.

The focus though, is on legally purchased firearms and not the criminal element who have either stolen or illegally purchased said arms.

Originally posted 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.

If they felt no "real threat from citizens with firearms," then how do you explain the phenomenal ammunition purchases lately by DHS? How do you explain the IRS, the NEA and, now, NOAA, purchasing firearms and ammunition? How do you explain the drones they are sending up to monitor us?

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

Do you have any plans for that? Something that perhaps no one else has thought of? Do you or have you seen anything to indicate the government has any idea of how to get guns away from criminals, much less the intentions of doing so? Do you think that the 'crazy shooters' of the past year or so have killed as many as the criminals in just Chicago, much less the rest of the U.S.?

I did a quick search on random mass shootings - the 'anonymous' variety; not the personal ones and not the gang or criminal related activity.

13 - Columbine High School, 1999
10 - Washington, D.C., 1999
32 - Virginia Tech, 2007
14 - Aurora 'Batman' shooting, 2012
7 - Sikh Temple, 2012
4 - Seattle, WA cafe, 2012
13 - Fort Hood massacre, 2011

Total: 93. Unquestionably, that's 93 lives lost unnecessarily. And, without a doubt, I missed a few. But if we're talking about gun control for the law-abiding (since the criminals aren't giving theirs up), and if we're talking about assessments for "mental illness" (which is such a gray area that it's dangerous to even consider) then we have to compare that 93 ... we'll even double it for purpose of discussion and call it 186 for any I couldn't find listed .. to JUST the number of people murdered by criminals in Chicago so far THIS year. The murders by criminals in Chicago will double that 186 by end of year.

So, there we have SEVEN who lost their minds enough to do a random shooting. Most other mass shootings to occur during that time period (if they were not gang-related) had to do with personal relationships and someone losing their minds due to personal relationship. But, we're talking the mentally ill. Why do the rights of some 300 million need to be reduced, impaired or impeded due to the random acts of 7?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
It is no longer a matter of protecting ourselves from the government, that's beyond possible.

Please defend your statement.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Allowing impoverished urban neighborhoods to be run by violent gangs is highly oppressive and a form of tyranny in itself.

And who has even attempted to do anything about it?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
The young in poor city areas are less equipped to fight tyranny than a community of educated individuals with no gun ownership.

Again, please defend your stance. From my POV, the young in poor cities have created their OWN form of tyranny.

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

How so?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
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.

Why do you believe that? Why do you believe the law abiding would turn on neighbors faster than criminals would?

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

History hasn't shown you the answer to that? Review history and you'll answer yourself.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
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.

Citations? Sources? Proof?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
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.

Lots of 'shoulds' there. 'Should' is generally considered a dogmatic statement. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim community believes people *should* believe in God; atheists believe people *should* not.

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

Research why Russia and Japan never invaded the United States. Look deep and well beyond mainstream sources. The truth is out there, but it will be hidden, it will be challenged and it will often be cited as "myth" or "rumor" because truth is one of the things they work so diligently to hide.

Look at the gun policies of Switzerland, the responsibilities given to their citizens and the resultant crime rate, as well as how many times Switzerland has been invaded.

Once you find the truth, you'll have TWO justifications.

You might even be able to take it from there on your own.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.

As to your first paragraph, INCORRECT! and, what's worse, you've relied upon your own assumption rather than research the truth for yourself. Countless guns ... meaning no one has ANY idea ... are made using spare parts found at flea markets, purchased online, passed from one person to another, stolen in the course of burglaries, etc. You can purchase books, find information and instructions online, and learn from others how to make a gun out of virtually anything. They can be as complex or as simple, as expensive or as inexpensive, as the makers' abilities allow. They can be durable and lasting or they can be disposable. Made of metal or made of alternative materials. Even the new 3-D printers can produce gun parts and those printers are now publicly available.

Read this article but make sure you read it VERY carefully because, while it seems to refute what I'm saying, the 'money' portion of the information begins beneath the photo.

You would be utterly amazed at what is sold innocently (ignorantly) at yard sales/Estate sales. I can't tell you how many gun parts I've seen included in what appears to be just a random bunch of metal 'junk' someone has put in a box and priced for $2 out of sheer ignorance - why do I know what they are? my grandfather and his brothers were master gunsmiths and I still recognize some of the parts all these long years later.

The second sentence of your second paragraph IS true, but only as it applies to those who refuse to educate themselves. Those of us who fight for Second Amendment rights KNOW the the truth, even if the full scope of it cannot be determined. But the 'bigger problem' you just identified for yourself lies NOT in the realm of the law-abiding citizenry; it lies in the realm of the criminal element of society - you know, that part that government ignores so well.

Why do you work so diligently, without adequate information, to bridle the Second Amendment and the rights of the law-abiding, while fully ignoring what the criminal element can and does do?

There is not ONE reason to make sure we never lose the 2A; there are a myriad of reasons. It is NOT only the tyranny of government from which the citizenry must retain the ability to defend themselves; it is the tyranny of the lawless. Research violent crime statistics in the U.K. They've not allowed gun ownership there for a long, long time. Research it carefully! You think we have violent crime here? *LOL* Removing guns has not, will not and has never, stopped violent crime - it just makes defenseless subjects of those who comply with the law.

How are you suppose to have any rights at all if you cannot defend them?

By telling them "please don't shoot me, this is an unarmed society"?
I guess they will laugh about it while they pull the trigger...

What more can I say?

reply to post by SeesFar


Only have a few minutes right now, so I'll try and respond briefly. I'm going to focus on my assertion that the gun owning citizen is more of a threat than the government and that the solutions lie in education, economics and communit.

First, in terms of violent oppression, an American is far more likely to get shot by a fellow citizen than a government agent. I shouldn't have to provide a source for that. I never said anything about law abiding citizens, and if the government were compromised and resources became scarce you would certainly see an increase in local gun violence as people seek food. The prevalence of guns in America makes the situation of catastrophe that much more catasrophic.

Now, solutions! I had another post with a link to an article correlating low income with mental illness. I also argued that gun violence causes mental illnes, which is also true in reverse. So bad economics creates mental illness which creates gun violence which creates more mental illness.

I think a lot of America's political problems can be solved to an extent by creating stronger local, community institutions. We are overfederalized. Instead of sending all our money to the the Fed and having them distribute to the needy, would a community center for the poor, sick, and elderly on local levels not be more efficient? Shooters tend to be anti social and a better community would provide an easier path to fitting in.

The number of guns in America has to be reduced. I am not in favor of the government kicking doors down and confiscating. I am in favor of people maturing and taking the responsibility to create a better, safer society themselves where firearms are not glorified and romanticized. To me it's about the common attitude toward guns, they are not really cool at all.

I just got back home and wanted to quickly thank everyone for their civil and thoughtful input.

I especially want to thank member Seesfar for bringing so much cogent and sourced insight into the debate! Very good stuff!

~Heff

reply to post by SeesFar


Because no one cares about people in the ghetto, their lives are viewed as disposable. If shootings were going on in the suburbs like that it'd be a crisis and all over the MSM.

Some clues to what I am getting at from a few slightly older sources ( last month )

"Maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said early Friday morning.

Now the odd thing is that it says this

Today's shooting tragedy in Colorado is likely to renew pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation to prevent attacks like this in the future. Yet recent history suggests serious gun control legislation as a result of the tragedy is unlikely: While the Columbine, Virginia Tech and Tuscon shootings prompted the now-familiar debates that have already begun in the wake of the Aurora attack, they did not lead to serious changes in gun control laws.

Directly after saying this

That's due in part to shifting public opinion: According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who want gun laws to be stricter fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 62 percent in 1995. By 2007, it was down to 51 percent. And last year it was just 44 percent in Gallup polling. It's also tied to the strength of the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington; lawmakers that defy the NRA know they are making a powerful enemy that could spend millions of dollars to defeat them.

CBS News Source

Did you catch that? A call for gun control directly after a statement showing that public support for gun control is waning!?!

THIS is exactly what I am talking about. This is media creating opinion instead of reporting it, IMO.

Pavlov would shake his head if he was aware that his work was being used like this...

~Heff

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Of course it it oppourtunistic. It is agenda driven.

Over 200 gun-related deaths in Chicago alone this year. Not a word. Not a peep.

A tragic event occurs in a movie theatre, a religious centre, and people weep.

Shooting occur DAILY in Chicago and . . . . . nothing. Nada. Zip.

I wonder why. . . . . . .

It really isn't opportunistic.

Most people in the USA do not live in the ghetto, where most of the gun crime is. They feel removed from it, it really isn't a threat to them. They do not have to worry about getting shot if they walk to the store...as the shootings are not near them.

However, if people are randomly shooting people up in areas like Aurora (a suburb), people are going to feel threatened, because it COULD happen to them.

reply to post by Hefficide


And you can go hear of pro-gun propaganda on Fox, talk radio, and breibart.

That article was political commentary, not a news article anyway

reply to post by RealSpoke


Commentary is the predominant method of news conveyance these days IMO. Most "news" shows these days are Murrow-esque commentary pieces. And they drive public opinion greatly.

And, yes, the right does have their own propaganda mechanism, just as the left does. But these things feed into one another in interesting ways. You get leftists screaming "No guns!" and the right replies "You can take my gun from my cold, dead fingers"... and it creates absolutisms that offend the moderate majority equally. Since most of us do not live black and white - all or nothing lives - we seek compromise.

The problem is that once you compromise on something that says "shall not be infringed upon"? Well you've began selling off acres... and it's not long before the whole farm is gone.

~Heff

Originally posted by RealSpoke


It really isn't opportunistic.

Most people in the USA do not live in the ghetto, where most of the gun crime is. They feel removed from it, it really isn't a threat to them. They do not have to worry about getting shot if they walk to the store...as the shootings are not near them.

However, if people are randomly shooting people up in areas like Aurora (a suburb), people are going to feel threatened, because it COULD happen to them.

But the advocates for gun control shouldn't care.
Gun violence is gun violence, right?

Why isn't the left weeping and gnashing their teeth about the gun violence in Chicago?

Originally posted by Hefficide

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
suppressing insurrection;

I removed all the other reasons and em-bolded these 2 because they counter-act each other in my opinion.

How can you defeat a Tyrannical Government while at the same time suppress an Insurrection??

Does the Tyrannical Government has the same right to suppress the Insurrection as the citizens have to Deter a Tyrannical Government through said Insurrection??

reply to post by yourmaker


Insurrections are commonly against not just the government - but also the will of a large portion of the people. Let's imagine that some fringe group tried to take over the US tomorrow... say a large gang. Then the citizens would have as much right to defend the US and their own property as the Government would have to defend the nation as a whole.

Thus we are armed to defend ourselves from all forms of tyranny - including the ones trying to take power from the current government.

~Heff

Some more food for thought from the "History repeats itself" category regarding totalitarianism and gun control:

The 1938 German Weapons Act The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law: Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted. The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18. The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year. Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6] Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year. On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

Source

~Heff

Originally posted by MassOccurs
I'm going to focus on my assertion that the gun owning citizen is more of a threat than the government and that the solutions lie in education, economics and communit.

Okay, but unless you have a LOT more than your assertion, such as sources and citations, you'll find it difficult to prove. Failure to prove puts it in the realm of OPINION.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
First, in terms of violent oppression, an American is far more likely to get shot by a fellow citizen than a government agent. I shouldn't have to provide a source for that.

You "shouldn't have to provide a source for that?" Pray tell WHY? Of course you must have a source for that because the evidence to the contrary is staggering:

Homeland Security finishing acquisition of millions of rounds of high-powered ammo

Homeland Security Orders Riot Gear

US Army orders riot gear, too

IRS Orders Shotguns, Pistols, Ammunition

Dept of Education Orders Shotguns and Ammo

NOAA Orders 46,000 Rounds of Hollow Point Ammo

That is but a drop in a very large bucket. Go spend a few hours digging through here and just surprise the dickens out of yourself!

Originally posted by MassOccurs
I never said anything about law abiding citizens...

Then from whom do you want them taken?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
... and if the government were compromised and resources became scarce you would certainly see an increase in local gun violence as people seek food. The prevalence of guns in America makes the situation of catastrophe that much more catasrophic.

If the government were to be compromised and resources became THAT scarce, you would see an elevation of EVERY kind of violence - violence that you've never even imagined - and guns would be but on small portion. There is no end to the creativity to which people will resort in order to feed themselves and their children.

At that point, you had best PRAY that there are decent people who are armed and who will stand up for the weak because the non-disciplined, the greedy, the depraved, the entitled, etc. will stop at NOTHING to obtain food. That is a scenario that no right-minded person wants to envision.

The remainder of your post will be addressed in a secondary reply due to space limitations.

PART II:

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Now, solutions! I had another post with a link to an article correlating low income with mental illness. I also argued that gun violence causes mental illnes, which is also true in reverse. So bad economics creates mental illness which creates gun violence which creates more mental illness.

The article you cited states "several lifetime mental disorders and suicide attempts, and a decrease in income is associated with a higher risk for anxiety, substance use, and mood disorders." It does not, however, say one word about guns. Therefore, you are making a stretch that the findings of that study do NOT address.

You 'argued' that gun violence causes mental illness. Using that logic, keyboards, pens and pencils cause either writers block or inspiration. "..which is also true in reverse." I worked in-patient psych for 5 years and I can assure you that the mentally ill are far more creative than just relying on guns. I refer to my previous post wherein I gave you specific examples and tolls - all of which came from SEVEN mentally ill people out of a population of 300,000,000. So, you would deny gun ownership based upon 0.0000023333333333333336% of the population with a severe mental illness having used a gun to commit an act of violence?

Your last sentence in the last quote paragraph is nothing but your OPINION and one not based on any fact.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
I think a lot of America's political problems can be solved to an extent by creating stronger local, community institutions. We are overfederalized. Instead of sending all our money to the the Fed and having them distribute to the needy, would a community center for the poor, sick, and elderly on local levels not be more efficient? Shooters tend to be anti social and a better community would provide an easier path to fitting in.

You'll need to adequately source your claim that 'shooters tend to be anti social.' I agree that we are overly federalized and needs are not being met; that said, I know of no State that does not have an MHMR Service. The problem is that those MHMR services are underfunded, the staff is underpaid and it's a very dangerous job. Furthermore, the grossly liberal policies regarding the rights of everyone have created a system wherein "treatment" is in and back out like a revolving door. You don't want to take your meds? "Welllll, you have the right NOT to take them.

That “better community” of which you speak is a utopian ideal which has never, throughout history, been achieved. The safest societies ever achieved were achieved because those who killed wrongly and without provocation were immediately killed. Those who lost their minds to the point of committing atrocities were killed. Those who raped were either killed or that portion of their anatomy most intimately associated with the crime was removed.

What we need is personal responsibility and a populace with enough spine to enforce social censure and do what is RIGHT for the public at large.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
The number of guns in America has to be reduced. I am not in favor of the government kicking doors down and confiscating. I am in favor of people maturing and taking the responsibility to create a better, safer society themselves where firearms are not glorified and romanticized. To me it's about the common attitude toward guns, they are not really cool at all.

No, it's YOUR opinion that the number of guns has to be reduced. And again, reduced by whom? From whom would you take them? Earlier in your post you said “I never said anything about law abiding citizens...” So, from whom, then? The criminals? I bid you good luck and God speed with that one!