Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

I'm at a loss to why people can't just admit that guns are bad and their existence is detrimental to a society function at optimum levels...

No I can't support that claim with source or statistics, because our society has always been messed up with violence. It's plain common sense.

I'm for demilitarization from the top down, government to individual.

How much firepower you own reflects how fearful you are. Wasting time and resources on fear can only hurt overall productivity.

And this entire notion that everything has to be backed up by sources is frustrating to me because frankly our society is stupid and has been as long as recorded. I'm stupid. You're all probably stupid. That's obvious. If anyone was really smart they'd be out fixing problems. But at least have the capacity to look at why you're stupid and see that gun culture plays it's role. (Defining stupid as substantially below human potential).

This is a no brainer. Owning guns and being around other gun owners seriously disrupts your minds ability to function properly because of the subconscious assumption that you're going to need them some day. It is this very attitude that allows violence a prominent place in human civilization and keeps us from progress.

Just because we've never seen an ideal society doesn't mean we have to settle for garbage...

Once again, I'll emphasize that stronger communities are seriously needed and will go a long way to solve every single problem we face.

Please, I'd love to hear more criticism. But more likely I'll be ignored.

reply to post by MassOccurs


I completely agree that guns are bad and in a perfect world we'd have none.

The problem is that we do have guns and that the people with guns have a decided advantage over those who don't have them. Herein lay the problem.

If you can figure a way to rid the entire world of guns then I'll happily hand mine over... but I'll also buy myself a good quality sword that same day.

~Heff

reply to post by SeesFar

RealSpoke, it IS opportunistic.

So is the NRA, Fox, and other pro-gun organizations. They've been harping pro-gun propaganda ever since this even happened.

The areas of the greatest crime are IGNORED by the media.

The media is a business, their main goal is to get ratings, as ratings equal money. This is the main thing taught when you take a journalism 101 class. Most of America could care less about ghetto people, they do not relate to them and do not care. If the media reported it all the time, less people would watch and there'd be less revenue.

Others feel removed from it because they ARE removed from it BECAUSE it is not reported

They are removed from it because they do not live there. They don't have to worry about it, ever.

Do you remember any reporter, much less many of them, going into the ghettos and onto the Reservations to show the Third World conditions?

Most of white suburban America does not care. They blame the conditions on the people living in the ghettos on the people.

They USE it to MAKE people scared,

No, mass shootings are scary on their own. Most peoples reactions when the hear of a crime, is to ban the substance that is causing it. Just look at all the cases blamed on bath salts, people were screaming to ban them. It is a natural re-action.

I believe Americans would be outraged if they really KNEW what was going on.

No they wouldn't. Just look about how people were making Trayvons death seem like no big deal, once they started calling him a thug. Him being a "thug" was used to justify the killing, it was actually all kinds of sickening.

You seem to be such a smart man - how can you NOT see the agenda? How can you NOT see how they use people? How can you NOT see how they keep all of us divided, creating suspicion and distrust among us and force feeding opinion to the masses

Everyone has an agenda, the pro and anti-gun people, both have been vocal about their positions since these mass shootings have taken place.

reply to post by MassOccurs
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I have never needed it. I hope I never have to use it. But it is there, as a tool, in case I do. Once a fire does start in my kitchen, I won't be able to talk to it, negotiate with it, bargain with it.
The most effective way to deal with the fire is to utilise the tool to combat it.

I could probably live my entire life with not ever having to use my fire extinguisher. I hope I do.

But having one and not needing it, is far better than needing one and not having it.

reply to post by SeesFar

As to your first paragraph, INCORRECT! and, what's worse, you've relied upon your own assumption rather than research the truth for yourself.

You do understand what a question is, right?

I relied on no assumptions...I asked a question and gave my unconfirmed opinion. This IS a discussion board...we are here to discuss...asking questions is part of a discussion.

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.

And all of those were purchased legally at some point. A spare part from a gun...came from a gun that was obtained legally from somewhere...either an individual purchased it from a store, a store purchased it from a manufacturer.

I'm sorry if I don't believe you that street gangs and criminals are building guns on their own...their guns largely come from guns that were once purchased legally. Are you denying this???

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

All the more reason for stricter gun regulation.

Research violent crime statistics in the U.K. They've not allowed gun ownership there for a long, long time.

Correlation does not imply causation.

If you want to make that claim, it is up to you to prove it.

reply to post by Hefficide


If technology progresses at projected rates then guns as we know them may be obsolete. That's probably the best hope.

Maybe in ten years every IPhone will have a force shield on it that ignites at the sound of a gunshot.

Too bad in the twisted logic of our "civilization" every technology must be weaponized because we fear our neighbors might just do the same...

reply to post by beezzer


Metaphor fails, you're not surrounded by arsonists in the same way you're surrounded by gun owners.

Your subconscious mind is bound to be more disrupted by the fear of gun violence than a house fire.

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


You have failed to provide any example where people having guns actually prevented the government from doing whatever they please.

Just quickly off the top of my head...

The Battle of Athens

I'm not an American so I am not up on all of your histroy but that one I am aware of.

I had forgotten about the Battle of Athens...that is actually a good example.

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with guns and elections mixing, no matter what side it is on. And I also don't think we would ever see something like this in today's society...if people used guns to try to solve "voter fraud" today...they would be seen as the enemy.

But that is one valid example.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by beezzer

 

Metaphor fails, you're not surrounded by arsonists in the same way you're surrounded by gun owners.

Your subconscious mind is bound to be more disrupted by the fear of gun violence than a house fire.

The metaphor was to illustrate that a firearm is just a tool. Gun owners aren't the same as arsonists. A better analogy would be described as being surrounded by matches, perhaps.

My subconscious mind is more at ease knowing that I can confront potential "fires" if they occur The alternative, would be a fear that I'd be unable to deal with the "fire" or to entrust dealing with the "fire" at the whim of others.

reply to post by beezzer


Fair enough, I posted that in haste and admit it was nonsense.

So, I'll try again to argue my side...

Your point is that the gun is simply a tool to protect oneself against a potential danger. The irony is that the danger you're primarily protecting against is a person with the same tool.

The fire extinguisher to a fire is more like bullet proof armor is to a gun.

If we're treating gun violence like fires then the house of our society would probably fail inspection. We live in shoulder to shoulder crowded warehouse made of tinder and everyone is building their own personal fire because they are cold. It's going to go up in flames, inevitably.

What I'm basically saying is we have too many people with too many guns and too many of them are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their personal circumstance. America is doing back flips on a high wire and if it falls off the crowd is going to demand a refund at gunpoint.

More nonsense, I guess that's what I'm all about.

Originally posted by MassOccurs

What I'm basically saying is we have too many people with too many guns and too many of them are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their personal circumstance. America is doing back flips on a high wire and if it falls off the crowd is going to demand a refund at gunpoint.

More nonsense, I guess that's what I'm all about.

That sounds like a great reason to go out and buy a gun to me. You've just made the case for the need for self protection!

~Heff

Originally posted by MassOccurs


What I'm basically saying is we have too many people with too many guns and too many of them are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their personal circumstance. America is doing back flips on a high wire and if it falls off the crowd is going to demand a refund at gunpoint.

More nonsense, I guess that's what I'm all about.

There is nothing society can do to alter a persons perception of their "personal circumstance".

America is doing back flips on a high wire and if it falls off the crowd is going to demand a refund at gunpoint.

And rightly so! To use your analogy, without weapons, we'd be unable to demand a refund.

My recent argument is that our society causes people to be too worried about potential fires at the detriment of their own mental progress.

This entire debate is corrupted by historical precedents. War, war, cold war, war, 9/11, shootings. As much as we'd like to distract ourselves from the tendency for people to kill one another, most will fail at this challenge and find their mind tied down by fear memories.

You want the kids growing up in a world defined by violence bro? Nah, stamp out the fire completely.

This is all related to the circumstances and violence surrounding the founding of America. As much as we love certain aspects, we're still top dog due largely to ruthless campaigns. The aftermath leaves us in constant fear of attack in the name of retribution for all who suffered at the hands of Western imperialism.

This problem is far bigger than the individuals right to bear arms. It's about man's struggle to forgive and move on from a violent past.

As long as America has the largest inmate population, high murder rates, and guns everywhere, the greater international community will never see us as a peaceful force.

In order to start a chain reaction that leads to trust on a larger scale, Americans need to see gun culture as a thing of a barbaric past and show the truth of that philosophy to the world through the action of demilitarization.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
.Rahm Emanuel (Former WHCOS)

I wonder when we there will be a mass shooting by a "mentally unbalanced" person(s) in Chicago,,,,,,

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


You guys know that the character Ari Gold on Entourage is based on the brother of Rahm Emanuel who is one of the biggest agents in Hollywood.

Now to say something on topic...

Speaking of Hollywood, which tends to be very liberal, how about this for a conspiracy: make a ton of violent movies, get the public to fall in love with guns and gangster culture so they go out and shoot a bunch of folks, then have all of the actors who so many worship say enough is enough! Time to collect the guns.

Pretty sure Matt Damon could convince the American public to do anything....

reply to post by MassOccurs

I wouldn't trust Matt Damon to mow my lawn!

Your ideaism is comendable. But if we disarmed ourselves then we'd be a victim to a multitude of oppoutunists that would take advantage. Most of them currently reside in Washington DC.

reply to post by MassOccurs


From the horses mouth itself - Matty Damon says:

Today, the hypocrisy is glaring. In an interview for The Sunday Herald in January 2003, Matt Damon declared “I actually hate guns. They freak me out.” Perhaps he’d like to favor his favorite charity with the royalties from his gun-o-centric films, such as Saving Private Ryan, Green Zone and The Bourne Ultimatum films.

Source

My question to Matt - who I actually enjoy - would be "Does this moral position include your body guards and the private security folks in your gated community?"

My point is the further behind a secure fence one is - the less one has to worry about self-protection.

~Heff

reply to post by beezzer


I think the idea that an armed citizen has any more power against federal opportunism than an unarmed is highly illusionary. If it comes to a gun collection initiative, or even martial law the hard core gunners will die fighting while the rest will live oppressed. I know which side I'd rather be on.

Maybe that's the quickest way to world peace? Really piss off one generation for the good of the third or fourth one down the line.

At the risk of getting over philosophical, is the sacrifice of personal principle in the name of a better future for others something we'd consider? Give up the guns now, it's going to be a struggle, but no one will be getting shot in 2100.

There are two debates that define the politics of today. Local vs centralized, and freedom vs. public safety.

Originally posted by MassOccurs


At the risk of getting over philosophical, is the sacrifice of personal principle in the name of a better future for others something we'd consider? Give up the guns now, it's going to be a struggle, but no one will be getting shot in 2100.

I isolated this portion of your post because this is the area that I'd like to address.

What if ones personal principles include a better future? You espouse ceding to a governmental authority. A governmental authority that has not proven itself to be beneficial to the individual. Man is a frail, weak, insecure, volitile, irrational being. Government is the amplification of mans weaknesses.

As an individual, we are as strong as we want to be. As a group, we are as strong as the weakest individual.

I don't know what kind or world you envision. But a world where our safety and security is entrusted not to the individual but to an authority (any authority) scares the raisins outta this l'il white rabbit!

"Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!"

The thread title is the crux of the whole issue, whatever issue. Tragedies occur and our rights need not suffer for them. We cannot pad the world like an infant's playpen and function fully and as adults in such a world. It is impossible to do so and unrealistic to try. However we do have many inept souls who feel such a thing would be ideal for us all.

I really am "Wild West" about most items and issues, not specifically being able to think of any issues to the contrary at the moment. I have lived in places where almost everything is regulated and watched over continuously, and I have lived in places where just about anything goes as long as undue attention is not drawn. There is a lot less stress and tension in that latter instance. Somewhat cliché but quite true enough to repeat, I would much rather deal with the problems of having too much liberty than the problems arising from having too little of it.

Where all is open and free the people often have to deal with a harsher reality having fewer safety nets. It may be harsher in many respects, calling for a more cautious and reasoned approach with its harshness being the consequences of ones chosen actions, but it is much less antagonistic and the people much more helpful and pleasant as well as being much more tolerant and forgiving.

Where I choose to live now, in a city of nearly one million people, only a few traffic lights on a few main roads operate and mainly to set a rhythm to the traffic flow. Almost all other intersections are uncontrolled and have no stop signs. Each driver must use caution at every intersection, so consequently they do not blast through them and they do cooperate with cross-traffic adjusting their own speed to keep a regular flow and taking alternate turns as necessary. There is much more cooperation among drivers and fewer accidents, though they sometimes occur infrequently when both drivers sleepily fail to pay attention.

Americans have their right-of-way and rely on that so they do not have to pay attention or give cooperation. "Pay" and "give" are just not things Americans like to do if the law will give them rights. They will demand their right-of-way and by gawd take it if they fear another driver might come between them and that right, even if it endangers everyone in proximity to their showdown.

Driving is just one example that demonstrates the sort of mind-set that permeates that culture. I was brought up in that mentality and see the fallacy in it now. If we have laws and regulations that govern our existence then we take what we feel is ours and feel no compulsion to cooperate or extend courtesy to anyone else, tough luck buddy!

When discussing survival in SHTF scenarios the answers immediately go to grabbing the guns and doing whatever it takes, tough luck buddy, to fend for their family - though I try to point out that most of those scenarios are likely going to be a few days or a couple weeks of inconvenience due to weather or other unforeseen conditions where having a few things on-hand and getting together with neighbors will go further than their guns. Inevitably the discussion leads back to whatever they don't have and might need then one of their neighbors probably does and if it means looking out for their family then they will just do whatever is necessary - then punctuate that statement by popping in a clip and chambering the first round.

Such an example as I just laid out does not mean I am not pro-firearms, I am Wild West in my thoughts on that. Extremists will likely be some of the first on the scene, and the first to leave it. Cooler heads will prevail, the quieter and more thoughtful ones not clinking metal out loud.

Society, as most of us know it, needs to evolve a bit but not creating more rules and regulations for courts and Judge Judy to have to rule on. When systems fail those will not be in place. Liberty and autonomy will have to be the direction of the future. It is the best system while society functions fully, and it is the only system when it fails. When catastrophe strike I would rather be living in a third-world country where a smile and cooperation is what gets them through those things as a matter of routine. When disaster strikes in a full-functioning law and order society like the United States then all Hell is going to break loose and the people will immediately revert to their basest instincts, which ain't pretty. Loosen those regulations which serve only to bind you, when the ship is sinking they will pull you under.

Tragedies WILL undermine your "rights," as you have come to think of them. Know the difference between true rights and not just carrots dangled on a string at the end of the long arm of the law. Those you are better off not having anyway.