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.
CB328
Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.
Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.
CB328
People like you are proof that our country is doomed. Our country will be like the middle east within a few decades, we should all start buying turbans.
Daedalus
Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....
um...it happens fairly regularly...
Thejaybird
Here's my take on the gun control debate:
When tragedy strikes in the form of a mass shooting, the issue of gun control rises up in the collective consciousness and becomes part of the national discussion, and unfortunately, this discussion tends to be driven by emotion rather than logic. When this happens, both sides stop listening, and it turns into situations like this one:
www.businessinsider.com...
Does Alex Jones come off as an absolute raving lunatic? Yes. Does Piers Morgan come off as someone who cannot form a cohesive argument? Yes. (Note: I personally enjoy both of these gentlemen outside of the context of this so-called debate, so this isn't an attempt to discredit either of them).
In light of their discussion, let us consider the following: Has either proponent of either side developed any new arguments in the last twenty years?
No.
The reasons, the rhetoric, the ideology, and the "talking points" behind both arguments is fundamentally the same today as it has been for as long as the argument has been in existence. Because of this stalemate, an important point of the discussion isn't being raised and considered, and it is as follows:
Both sides are correct in their assertions, and the cognitive dissonance that comes from such an understanding should not prevent us from exploring and considering such a notion.
Proponents of gun control can make a completely valid case that is substantiated in factual reality.
Yes, in countries where guns have been taken away (or voluntarily turned in), there is less gun crime, less shootings, and not nearly the number of devastating instances that seem to be happening at a much greater frequency.
They are absolutely correct in their assertion that it should be much more difficult to obtain a firearm or ammunition of any sort, and that there is a segment of the population (convicted felons, criminals, mentally unstable people) who should never be able to obtain them at all.
They are absolutely correct that the "waiting period" to purchase a firearm should be long enough to ascertain whether or not the individual is in compliance with the requirements found in the Federal legislation known as the Brady Bill, and that law enforcement do their due diligence is each and every potential firearm purchase.
They are absolutely correct in maintaining that the world would be a better, safer place if gun possession and ownership were eradicated.
The position that favors gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.
However, the other side of the argument is also correct in their assertions, which too are based in reason and logic. They point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, especially the sentence that declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". The logic behind this is that the Framers, fresh from a war to obtain freedom from tyranny, knew the potential governments of any sort had to become corrupt, and placed this clause in the Constitution to ensure that the people would always have the option of rising up and overtaking leaders who abused their power. They point out that this very amendment is proof positive that the men who founded this country knew what was necessary to obtain liberty, and would secure the rights of future generations to live free from the fear of being overcome by tyranny because they possessed the weaponry to rise up, if need be. They point to the Declaration of Independence and its lines that clearly state, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security", and the ability to do this requires the use of weaponry. The position that favors less or no gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.
Therein lies the conundrum, and it is at this point in which cognitive dissonance becomes the thing that keeps us from coming to any sort of resolution to this debate. Cognitive dissonance is something people seek to avoid; rather than holding two or more conflicting ideas in their mind, people will seek to marginalize or dismiss outright one of the two ideas in conflict, thereby achieving a balanced state of mind and removing the problem of having to contend with the two ideologies as equal.
The problem with this is that there are instances, more than we would like to admit, in which both sides of a debate are equal and have merit, even though they seem to contradict one another. When this happens, we need to address the reality that the answer may exist in accepting both sides of the argument as correct, and therein lies the solution.
In the discussion of gun control, such a compromise might read something like this:
It is true that guns, regardless of size, are extremely dangerous when they are in the hands of people who use them maliciously or with bad intent towards another human being.
Gun ownership should not be a right, but a privilege.
In order to obtain weaponry, one should have to pass the strictest of background checks,
which would include examination of all criminal records to ensure that those who have spent time in prison (for any reason whatsoever) will not be granted the privilege of gun ownership.
In addition, each applicant attempting to purchase a firearm must pass a psychological test (which would be administered by a trained professional from the psychiatric medical field) and must continue to pass such a test on a yearly basis in order to continue to possess their firearms.
While the world would indeed be a better place without weaponry
it must be understood that, as long as the military, police, and government officials are issued firearms, the right of the people to possess guns "shall not be infringed", as that privilege exists to provide the populace with the ability to defend and protect themselves from tyrannical leaders. As such, persons who pass all of the necessary requirements should be allowed to own any sort of gun, any size magazine/clip, and own as many as they see fit. Until we reach a point in time in which there is a collective agreement to completely disarm the entire populace, the people should be afforded the same rights in regards to weaponry as those who have chosen to "serve and protect".
I am all for a world in which we come to a place where we lay aside our differences, realize that force and might are not the answer to any problem that may arise, and begin to instead seek out peaceable resolutions to our disagreements. However, until the day arrives in which the military, the police, the Secret Service, Federal Marshalls, the BATF, The Department of Homeland Security, all SWAT teams, and any other entity that requires its members to be armed makes the decision to disarm, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
We cannot have our cake and eat it, too.
Xtrozero
Daedalus
Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....
um...it happens fairly regularly...
This was a sarcastic remark...
We have gun posts it seems every day.
Xtrozero
I always wondered what the debate was over....
Are we debating as to how to limit an evil, carnivore, eat other species into extinction, top of the food chain species from killing or is it just over guns?
Daedalus
i have no clue wtf you just said....any chance you could rewrite your statement in english?
Daedalus
Xtrozero
Daedalus
Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....
um...it happens fairly regularly...
This was a sarcastic remark...
We have gun posts it seems every day.
oh, hahaha, sorry...
it's so hard to nail down sarcasm on a message board, my bad.
Xtrozero
Daedalus
Xtrozero
Daedalus
Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....
um...it happens fairly regularly...
This was a sarcastic remark...
We have gun posts it seems every day.
oh, hahaha, sorry...
it's so hard to nail down sarcasm on a message board, my bad.
I should have added a emote or two,
CB328
Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.
Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.
Daedalus
reply to post by Xtrozero
i actually read it a few times, just to make sure i wasn't getting dyslexia....but the way in which it's worded is quite confusing...i can follow it to a point, but only that far...
i thank you for elaborating, and clearing it up for me though, it's quite well thought out..
Daedalus
i don't think it's a matter of cognitive dissonance, so much as a perpetual ignorance on both sides....the anti-gun people often haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they're horribly misinformed, and are more interested in "winning" the argument, than they are with getting their facts straight...if they did that, they might realize their argument was invalid, which would mean they were wrong..and they'll never admit to that.
meanwhile, the pro-gun side, while generally decent and level headed people, always has a few that are nuts, or appear to be nuts, or act irresponsibly, and unfortunately, those are the people we always see in the media....i use Jones as an example...had he remained calm, and just talked facts and figures, he would have obliterated Morgan, and made him look VERY foolish. Jones does the research, he has the numbers and the information, he's just incapable of presenting it in a calm, measured, and rational fashion, under pressure. unfortunately, as i said, the ones who act like he did are the ones we see...if there were less of this, there would be no issue, i think...
Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.
doubletap
CB328
Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.
Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.
Thats just a sad troll attempt.
1/10 at best, way too obvious.
No rational, mature adult could ever have such a stupid and uninformed opinion.
Unless of course you are a high school student.....then who knows whats wrong with you.
Xtrozero
This is also true, but the problem here is it takes a lot effort to prove their point and most do not want to invest that much effort with out passion driving them.
Effort + Passion = Jones having a melt down...
crazyewok
Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.
I bet they thought that In NAZI Germany ect
What makes a American Solider any different from any other?
They are still only humans, the same sacks of meat and water that every other solider on earth is.
crazyewok
Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.
I bet they thought that In NAZI Germany ect
What makes a American Solider any different from any other?
They are still only humans, the same sacks of meat and water that every other solider on earth is.