Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I'm not pro-gun, I'm pro-liberty.

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Warning, this rant is likely to go all over the place and cover the different things about the current liberties debates currently going on that boggle me.

First of all, and to the point of the title of this post, just because I support the second amendment and the constitution doesn't mean I'm some "macho gun nut who loves their gun as a phallic substitute" and the other inane things people who support the right to bear arms are being called. (which is not to say that those who support my side haven't been guilty of calling people names, which I also disagree with, and example of this is the "you didn't mind american guns when the nazi's were knocking" and other such comparisons which just remind me of me being accused of being personally responsible for american slavery or the abuses the indigenous indian tribes suffered, it's nonsensical and counter-productive.) I don't own a gun, I don't want to own a gun. My stake in this gun conversation is the preservation of the right to own a gun, just because I don't choose to exercise a right doesn't mean I believe it should be taken away.

Next thing I don't get. Sandy Hook was the beginning of this, and all I want to say about that is, instead of enacting new laws limiting our liberties and punishing those who have done nothing wrong, how about we look at how the precautions we already have in place failed and shore up those deficiencies. Here in PA, the elementary school where the children I look after attend, you have to be buzzed in after school starts. When we lived in Maine I once went with the childrens parents to the school where they had a teacher conference, I waited in the vehicle and was approached and questioned about why I was there twice by three different people in the school in 5 mins. How did the perpetrator terminator his way into the school? I'm not looking to blame others for what he did, but lets analyze how it happened and how that circumvented the safety measures already in place before we make new laws. We already know that his mother apparently didn't properly store her firearms and a push to educate the american public about the importance of and proper methods of safe storage of firearms is a logical pursuit for safety that doesn't infringe on any existing rights. Let's follow it through and figure out other ways.

Next thing I don't get. Assault weapons ban. It seems to me (and those with knowledge of firearms, feel free to correct me where I am wrong) the utility of an "assault weapon" as they are loosely defined over a handgun is a matter of extended operating range and larger clip capacity. Well if we are gonna pass legislation that limits the maximum clip capacity to something that is within the range of most semi-automatic handguns, that only leaves extended range, but the incidents that have occurred to spur this ban have all, to my knowledge, been enacted easily within the operational range of handguns, they weren't sniper or long range incidents. So if we ban large capacity clips why do we need to ban "assault weapons"? Although I believe that if we limit clip capacity for civilians we should also do so for any non-military personnel including law enforcement, if we don't need them, why should they. Although I know there are those out there who would argue that limiting the clip capacity of a firearm constitutes infringement, it's a far weaker argument then against an assault weapons ban, and a compromise that addresses peoples concerns without trashing a constitutional amendment.

Some personal thoughts about non-americans in the debate. While I am loathe to try and limit anyones free speech some personal moderation of your speech would be appreciated. This doesn't effect you if you don't live here, us gun-loving americans aren't bringing our firearms to your country, there are some pretty stringent safety measures in place keeping us from taking weapons to other continents. I'm not saying if you have an opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to express it, but yours should not be the loudest voice in the debate, we americans need to address this as it effects us quite profoundly. You have an opinion express it and let it go, don't argue it for six pages, or post your own rant and encourage people to debate with you there, or post a foreigners opinion of the american gun debate post, it doesn't have to be rant. I had a knee-jerk reaction where I had wanted to say to those who aren't american citizens that if you want to strip from me my 2nd amendment rights, why should I extend to you my 1st amendment rights, rights which by virtue of your not being a US citizen you don't have here. But I don't want be like that, it's just hard to deal with this debate and hope that people will move beyond emotional attacks and begin to discuss the issues and how we can deal with them without an armed insurrection, which I'm against. And people without a stake stirring up the pot bothers me. But I'm currently so pessimistic about the entire situation and where we are going that I guess your contributions don't really make anything much worse. I'm conflicted and apologize to anyone I offended by thinking I seek to silence you, I don't, not really.

One more personal thought and I'm done, to the universal love and harmony people who say be one with the universe, don't resist, if someone comes at you to do harm greet them with love and feel bad that they need to do violence. That is not at all harmony with the universe, the universe is all about resistance, even when futile. Does the gazelle lay down for the lion? Does the mongoose lay down for the snake? Do chickens lay down for the fox. Or does a celestial body enacted upon by a greater gravitational force immediately follow the path of least resistance straight at the source of the greater gravitational force? Resistance is inherent in the operation of the universe.

Ok I'm done,
Respectfully,
T.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Well said... One of the better rants that I have read here



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   


Although I believe that if we limit clip capacity for civilians we should also do so for any non-military personnel including law enforcement, if we don't need them, why should they?


As you can see in the clip below the officer, when confronted with a man who allegedly had
a knife, exhausted his clip capacity of eleven rounds in mere seconds. You want him to have to
take the time to reload?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


Thank you for your kind words. It's just a collection of random points that have been bothering me, but I didn't want to express them in another's thread and possibly derail it.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


My soul weeps for the pains enforced upon anyone by the empowered and unjust. And it's things like these that make these issues so important right now. If we are ever to counter the corruption we are faced with it must start with a line in the sand that says "No more. You aren't taking anymore of my liberties away." Only when we stop the erosion of our liberties can we begin to restore those we've already lost. I wish we lived in a world were corruption didn't exist and man loved and supported his fellow man and weapons no longer served any functional purpose and could be completely gotten ridden of, unfortunately it's just a wish, not reality.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well put rant OP. My facetious post aside, you make some great points. What I like best is that you
state that you are pro-liberty and that you realize that guns are part of that equation. I'm like you in
thatI am not a "gun nut" I don't own an over-sized 4x4 truck or see my personal possessions as an
extension of my manhood, guns included. But I do jealously protect my right to protect myself with a
weapon if I so choose.

There are better solutions to the problems posed by homicidal lunatics among us, but punishing
all others by restricting their right to personal protection is dangerous for many more than
the few who die at the hands of these lunatics.

Freedom isn't free, and it isn't safe. The sacrifice of true freedom is personal responsibility
for your own protection. The alternative is not a reality I would like to live in. I would rather my
children grow up in a world that is slightly dangerous, taking some personal responsibility for
themselves and their own happiness and security than in a world that is completely controlled
by others
edit on 24-1-2013 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   


I wish we lived in a world were corruption didn't exist and man loved and supported his fellow man and weapons no longer served any functional purpose and could be completely gotten ridden of, unfortunately it's just a wish, not reality.


Hell, I don't believe much in wishes, but I'll wish that right along with you. And I'm not religious
but the first part would make a mighty fine prayer...dum spiro, spero



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Thought of another thing that boggles me: The "If you want to hold true to the second amendment then trade your contemporary guns for a musket" argument. This seems nonsensical to me. The people who crafted the constitution and the bill of rights seem to have possessed a very good grasp of the english language as it existed in their time, and also seemed to be very careful in choosing the words that they used in those documents. Now as musket is a word that existed back then, it's not something we have made up in contemporary times, and I'm sure they were aware of the word, if their intention was, as is contended by the argument, that the right to keep bear arms meant muskets, why didn't they say muskets? They specifically chose the word arms, which seems logically to me to mean they understood that weapon technology would advance and chose a word "arms" that would naturally scale with time and weapon advancements. So that at no time would the weapons available to government be able to outstrip those available to a ready and able formed militia to protect from the tyranny of a bloated corrupt government. The issue gets muddy when we progress to todays military might, fighter jets, attack helicopters, nuclear missiles, remote armed drones, things that I don't think even our forward thinking founders could have possibly imagined.






top topics



 
4

log in

join