Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by ObservingYou
(A post of mine that deserves a thread)

I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times.

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't and shouldn't exist - they are a force of destruction after all.

HOWEVER, having said that, answer me this Americans -

"Do you trust your government to have arms whilst you do not have any?"

Especially with acts like the Patriot act popping up..

Thoughts?


I've seen this suggested as one of the excuses, and I really don't see the logic.

I was actually pro-gun for a long time for this very reason, until I saw real revolution playing out in Egypt, Libya, Syria. That's when logic hit me and I realised some facts I had been missing out on.

Do you really believe that your guns are a match for a massive intelligence agency, mass media PR, an army hundreds of thousands strong, tanks, fighter jets, drones...?

A revolution succeeds through defection of an army or through outside assistance. There is no chance in hell the American people are going to overthrow their own government with their guns, no chance.

If another revolution does happen in the US, your ownership of guns will not mean anything. You would not succeed without more fire-power, and that would come through military defection or supply from outside. In which case, your current guns are pointless.

I know people will refuse this, but it's true. Look at all the other revolutions around the world and you'll see the same thing. They succeed because of military defection or outside supply, not because the population have guns up against tanks, jets, explosives, drones or anything else a government has at its disposal.


That's not true and an overly simplistic, binary way of looking at things. Revolutions must have momentum and a nidus before outside support and defections from the military.

First you ahve a deterrence factor. No politician wants to be standing on and responsible for several Waco-style piles of ash...it makes for bad press. Sure, one or two get written off as nut-jobs, but the more and more that happen, the more and more the rest of the people know that these were not just nut-jobs but regular citizens with regular jobs and regular positions in the community.

If the military gets called in, it evenlooks worse for the politicians: calling the Army on your own citizens is very un-American. There is more fighting, many, many military people (the majority of which already have sympathy for the gun owner and the pro-Constitution types, because that is the type of person typically drawn to the US military) have sympathy and join in and take their weapons and knowlege with them...perhaps even the entire military.

Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us what determined individuals can do with rifles.

Can the current amount of privately owned firearms win a revolution? Maybe yes, maybe not. The sheer volume could certainly do it, if enough people took to the streets. Even if it was just a minority, history has shown us that it could be enough of a nidus to create a larger movement. This is why controllling, power hungry, statists hate RKBA.
edit on 21-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


My argument is, if the law enforement are armed so should the populace be.

To disarm the populace should mean the law enforcement should be unarmed to.

That would be in a balanced and ideal society though right? To much to ask for apparently.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by DerekJR321
And yeah.. let's make guns illegal. Because it worked out so well for heroin and coc aine.


Of course, the reality is that Heroine and Cocaine cannot be taken into a school and used to murder hundreds of people


This is an irrational argument I have seen several times from pro-gun people, and it makes absolutely no sense. Drug use, alcohol abuse and any other form of self harm is just that, SELF harm.

None of those criminal acts are capable of murdering 20 children in a class room. And that is why your comparison is so ridiculously stupid it should be pointed out at every single opportunity.


You miss the point. The point is that prohibition of an object has never stopped access to and use of said object.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Funny, how your unfounded and ill-advised opinions, come across as so, matter-of-fact...Let me help you...




An unarmed America is a safer America.


...should be re-phrased to state, "An unarmed criminal element in America is a safer America."



But one doesn't become a criminal until one commits a crime... So, what's your point?


That is my point!

It is those who have proven intent, that we should be apprehensive of. Safety, is relative in respect to what you subject yourself to.
You are safer, in a warehouse full of guns, than in the midst of several unarmed criminals. Guns don't have intent to harm, although they have the ability. Criminals have shown intent, and use weapons to enhance their ability.

Unarmed criminals, will create a safer America! Not armed criminals and unarmed civilians; as to which laws banning weapons would ensure!


How do you know someone is a criminal? Anyone that's ever been arrested? Sounds like you're pre-grouping complete strangers.


Actually, you are! And, I won't bother to re-post your responses, proving so. We both know, to what I'm referring.

At times, I may come off as "Johnny Redneck" but I assure you, that your attempt to cast a negative, ignorant, fear-inducing net over all gun owners, has not went un-noticed.

I do see where you are trying to lead me. But, I generally avoid slippery slopes due to my intellect, and in spite of my many labels. I do not, however, forsee an arm of the Justice Department, titled "Pre-Crime Division" (as in the movie, Minority Report), in our future.

Let me put it simply, for you. We will NEVER be able to completely irradicate everything bad, that can ever happen to us! Not because we will never be able to, but because the insurance companies of the world, would never allow it...



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
As long as there are enemies of freedom there will be a need for guns! Unfortunately there are too many stupid people in the world among them are the enemies of freedom and dumbasses that think we should disarm while the enemies of freedom remain armed and continue to threaten our freedoms...
edit on 21-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


So why not a compromise?

It seems to be all or nothing with this issue in the US.

If you think you would stand a chance against your government in a revolution, and that's why you want your guns, why not a law requiring a gun club in your region, for the secure storage and use of those weapons on designated land? This would assist in keeping powerful guns out of the hands of others.

If you want a gun for self defence if the big bad bogeyman invades your home, all you need is a hand gun. All others can be legally dealt with when it comes to presence in the home.

If you need your weapon for management of your land, why not have laws restricting the area in which such guns can be used, and the types of gun able to be owned? This is how we manage it in the UK, and farmers are allowed to own and use guns in these areas - if they take such a weapon into a town or city they can then be prosecuted.

There are plenty of ways to manage gun control based on each issue, but even that is considered a step too far by most - and for no other reason than absolute arrogance.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Isn't that the type of info they provide when applying for a gun licence already?
edit on 21-12-2012 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.


Yeah cause Mohmmad Muslim with his AK in robes and sandals in Iraq and Afghanistan were easily defeated... Oh wait they are still holding out... You should see what Johnny redneck can make in his garage or shop...



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by ObservingYou
(A post of mine that deserves a thread)

I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times.

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't and shouldn't exist - they are a force of destruction after all.

HOWEVER, having said that, answer me this Americans -

"Do you trust your government to have arms whilst you do not have any?"

Especially with acts like the Patriot act popping up..

Thoughts?


I've seen this suggested as one of the excuses, and I really don't see the logic.

I was actually pro-gun for a long time for this very reason, until I saw real revolution playing out in Egypt, Libya, Syria. That's when logic hit me and I realised some facts I had been missing out on.

Do you really believe that your guns are a match for a massive intelligence agency, mass media PR, an army hundreds of thousands strong, tanks, fighter jets, drones...?

A revolution succeeds through defection of an army or through outside assistance. There is no chance in hell the American people are going to overthrow their own government with their guns, no chance.

If another revolution does happen in the US, your ownership of guns will not mean anything. You would not succeed without more fire-power, and that would come through military defection or supply from outside. In which case, your current guns are pointless.

I know people will refuse this, but it's true. Look at all the other revolutions around the world and you'll see the same thing. They succeed because of military defection or outside supply, not because the population have guns up against tanks, jets, explosives, drones or anything else a government has at its disposal.


That's not true and an overly simplistic, binary way of looking at things. Revolutions must have momentum and a nidus before outside support and defections from the military.


Indeed, I don't dispute that at all. In fact, if you were to go back through my posts in discussions of revolution you would see that I have a considerable grasp of what causes revolution, with the sense of injustice being the primary driver for a protest becoming a revolution.

At no point have I argued against that core belief. The evidence is there to show that this is what happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that any American revolution now would need outside assistance or defection within.

Your guns would not make an iota of difference in a revolution. You would need a more comparable force against a government, your rifles and handguns will not do it.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.


Strong statements there - Somethings rattled your cage aha.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Revolution comes with idea's, and the stage is set for information wars.

But if you can't win a war with words - actions will eventually be taken.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


My argument is, if the law enforement are armed so should the populace be.

To disarm the populace should mean the law enforcement should be unarmed to.

That would be in a balanced and ideal society though right? To much to ask for apparently.


I don't think that's too much to ask for at all, so why is this argument not being put forward?

In the UK police officers are not armed in their daily duties, they have access to specialist armed teams when it is needed, and when there is a crime deserving of such a response.

That is entirely plausible for America in future years.

However, that takes time. You wouldn't be able to outlaw all guns and immediately disarm your police too. That would have to come later once gun related crime has fallen to an acceptable level and it is deemed safe to disarm the police.

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. It's surely better than just allowing things to continue the way they are.

Although the last incident was the most horrific incident we've seen, there are worse scenarios we can imagine. Is that what it'll take before people actually start waking up to the reality instead of holding on and waving around an outdated script?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



So why not a compromise?


Lauren Hill once said:

No more compromises,
I see through your disguises,
Blinding through your mind control,
Tryin to steal my eternal soul,
Appealing through material,
To keep me as you're slave..
But I'll get out.

Compromising got us here in the first place. The time has come for decision.

ETA: Nice to see you agree with my proposal, but the fact remains, can you see the US government disarming their forces?

Government and TRUST are the clear issues that need to be addressed.
edit on 21-12-2012 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by DerekJR321
And yeah.. let's make guns illegal. Because it worked out so well for heroin and coc aine.


Of course, the reality is that Heroine and Cocaine cannot be taken into a school and used to murder hundreds of people


This is an irrational argument I have seen several times from pro-gun people, and it makes absolutely no sense. Drug use, alcohol abuse and any other form of self harm is just that, SELF harm.

None of those criminal acts are capable of murdering 20 children in a class room. And that is why your comparison is so ridiculously stupid it should be pointed out at every single opportunity.


You miss the point. The point is that prohibition of an object has never stopped access to and use of said object.


Do you have evidence for that?

I don't use drugs, but I do smoke, and I do drink socially. Those are both legal, while crack coc aine and heroine are not. If they were, there is a significantly increased chance that I would be using both, is there not?

Cannabis is a drug, illegal in many places, but some use it. But wouldn't MORE people use it if it was openly available?

You're suggesting that even the illegality of drugs does not stop their use, but the same can be said for anything, many people DO obey the laws of their country, every day.

The minority who do not can be treated within the law, just as they are in every other instance.

If coffee was banned tomorrow, there would still be people drinking it. But finding it would be harder, and there would be consequences of drinking it too.

Therefore, your comparison just doesn't make any logical sense.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Those teachers managed to save dozens of students at a time without the use of guns. They acted heroically during a terrifying event.

Don't disgrace their memories by saying it wouldn't of happened had they been armed.

You assume everyone has abilities, everyone can kill someone, everyone can react in a situation.

Fact is, when in an terrifgying event, 2/3 of you will cry and pee your pants. The only thing that makes you feel heroic IS a gun.

Even with a gun, you couldn't be half the hero these educators were.


You people disgust me.


I'm sure that NO ONE intends to disgrace their memories. And, NO ONE disputes that they are Heroes...

But the fact remains that they are now, dead, Heroes! And they will never, ever, be able to save another life!
What some are stating, is that the outcome, could have been different. And, in that respect, their heroism, might not have been their final act.
edit on 12/21/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: ...



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Revolution comes with idea's, and the stage is set for information wars.

But if you can't win a war with words - actions will eventually be taken.


I think you're thinking more along the lines of a coup, or a group of people with a political ideology.

A real revolution is driven by popular support, and that rarely (if ever) comes from a stage. It comes from raw Human emotion.

Imagine there is a protest against a new form of taxation on the people - you can use the example of the Poll Tax in the UK if you like. The police response is a violent one, and images of that violence spread throughout the country. More and more people become angry, not just about the new tax, but about the images they saw of their own police beating innocent people in the street, firing on them, potentially even deaths as a result of it.

Sometimes the government backs down, sometimes they win through overpowering force. But sometimes the people continue and turn their protest into a revolution.

THAT sense of injustice and outrage is what turns a protest into a revolution. That is what we've seen in several countries. It hasn't been a political party standing on a stage and organizing a revolution.

The revolution in Egypt began with a man in a market setting fire to himself over his inability to work without police harassment - controlled by corrupt government officials.

People then protested against corruption. The army and police acted with extreme violence against those protests and more people came out onto the streets in a rage. That caused a revolution and allowed all other citizens to join the crowd and call for the removal of the government.

Military and police broke apart, with many defecting to the side of the people. They assisted them with arms and tactics in order to continue the protests.

This is what led to the revolution there, it's what led to the revolution in Libya, it's what has led to the revolution in Syria. In all three instances the people protested, the government fought back with excessive violence, it created more anger and brought more people out onto the streets. Aspects of the military broke away from the government in defence of their people.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


So why not a compromise?

It seems to be all or nothing with this issue in the US.

If you think you would stand a chance against your government in a revolution, and that's why you want your guns, why not a law requiring a gun club in your region, for the secure storage and use of those weapons on designated land? This would assist in keeping powerful guns out of the hands of others.

If you want a gun for self defence if the big bad bogeyman invades your home, all you need is a hand gun. All others can be legally dealt with when it comes to presence in the home.

If you need your weapon for management of your land, why not have laws restricting the area in which such guns can be used, and the types of gun able to be owned? This is how we manage it in the UK, and farmers are allowed to own and use guns in these areas - if they take such a weapon into a town or city they can then be prosecuted.

There are plenty of ways to manage gun control based on each issue, but even that is considered a step too far by most - and for no other reason than absolute arrogance.


Here's the problem: "Compromise" means that the other side gives something too, not just getting less than they originally wanted. US gun owners have been "compromising" for decades without getting anything back from anti-gunners as part of their "compromises." All we have gotten is incremental erosion of our rights. In my lifetime, and I'm not that old, we have gone from being able to by rifles through the mail from the SEARS catalogue to registration and government background checks and asking permission to exercise a civil liberty. When my dad was a kid, he's keep his gun at school and walk home with it incase he saw a rabbit for the table.

What are the anti-gunners going to give us for a "compromise?" Repeal the NFA? C'mon.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by DerekJR321
And yeah.. let's make guns illegal. Because it worked out so well for heroin and coc aine.


Of course, the reality is that Heroine and Cocaine cannot be taken into a school and used to murder hundreds of people


This is an irrational argument I have seen several times from pro-gun people, and it makes absolutely no sense. Drug use, alcohol abuse and any other form of self harm is just that, SELF harm.

None of those criminal acts are capable of murdering 20 children in a class room. And that is why your comparison is so ridiculously stupid it should be pointed out at every single opportunity.


You miss the point. The point is that prohibition of an object has never stopped access to and use of said object.


Do you have evidence for that?

I don't use drugs, but I do smoke, and I do drink socially. Those are both legal, while crack coc aine and heroine are not. If they were, there is a significantly increased chance that I would be using both, is there not?

Cannabis is a drug, illegal in many places, but some use it. But wouldn't MORE people use it if it was openly available?

You're suggesting that even the illegality of drugs does not stop their use, but the same can be said for anything, many people DO obey the laws of their country, every day.

The minority who do not can be treated within the law, just as they are in every other instance.

If coffee was banned tomorrow, there would still be people drinking it. But finding it would be harder, and there would be consequences of drinking it too.

Therefore, your comparison just doesn't make any logical sense.


It is quite logical. Prohibition did not stop alcohol use just as the WOD has not stopped the access and use of drugs. Would more people use them if they were legal? Perhaps, perhaps not, however, they are certainly available for those who want to regardless of the law. Your point actually fits with mine: that law abiding people will not violate the law, but lawbreakers certainly will and do and it is uttlerly illogical to think that, even though in every other instance, this is true, it would be different in gun bans.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


How have you forgetten the western intervention in these instances?! (Egypt and Libya).
edit on 21-12-2012 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join