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
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. . . . . . .
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.
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.
Originally posted by MassOccurs
It is no longer a matter of protecting ourselves from the government, that's beyond possible.
Originally posted by MassOccurs
Allowing impoverished urban neighborhoods to be run by violent gangs is highly oppressive and a form of tyranny in itself.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by MassOccurs
Who is more a threat to overtly oppress, the gun owning citizen or the government?
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.
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.
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???
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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. . . . . . .
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.
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;
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]
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.
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.
Originally posted by MassOccurs
I never said anything about law abiding citizens...
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.
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.
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.
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.