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