Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

In the wake of what seems like a non stop string of spree shootings - and the unrelenting coverage from the mass media that has ensued, I have found myself wondering why the media is so fixated upon these particular stories. I do understand covering a tragedy. I even understand following up on that tragedy as new information is released. But lately all of the news stations seem almost like they are infomercials paid for and bought by the anti gun lobby.

It feels like there is an agenda here to me.

Now, I am not discounting the tragic nature of these events at all. They are horrifying and terrible things. I feel a great sympathy for the victims of all of these tragedies and for their friends and loved ones. But as I wade through the literal sea of reporting of these events certain things start to become clear. Specifically two things... one, the term "mentally ill" tends to get thrown around a lot. The other is some sort of comment about gun control.

Before we continue, let's cover one basic thing. Our rights regarding possessing guns in the US. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Emphasis mine

Source

While this issue is often hotly debated on ATS - and all other social settings as well - there is no room for misinterpretation here. We have the RIGHT to bear arms. This right was based upon even older English law and is there for simple reasons:

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;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Same source as above

Notice that first listing... deterring tyrannical government.

I think we can all agree that people in power do not much like it when those not in power still retain an ability to take power back. This is problematic to the concept of totalitarian authority. A well armed nation will rise up if you push them too hard. Just read any newspaper from the past year or two and this becomes apparent in nation after nation.

So the problem becomes... how do you get the guns away from the people you want to control???

The answer is pretty simple. You let circumstances reach an emotional boiling point, as exists during times of recession/depression - then you wait for the nearly non-existent mental health system in your country to miss a ton of red flags for a few individuals...

Once those few people snap... you go on the defensive - All in the name of "security" and "safety".

A PDF about Mental Health Statistics

Then you wait for the knee-jerk, fear based reactions to happen and you actively react to public opinion. And if you think it's a partisan issue... Well both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have made statements that seem to ignore the "shall not be infringed" aspect of the second amendment. Since President Obama is the sitting POTUS I'll address a statement that he's made:

"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree ... that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," said the president.

from above Obama source

This seems to be a well thought out and rational statement... But... "mentally unbalanced"? This is a very ambiguous term. Mental disorders are very common and a large percentage of the US population qualifies.

Guess what? If you have a beer every night, after work, technically speaking you could be construed as an alcoholic - and therefore mentally unbalanced.

Ever get mad enough, even as a youngster to throw a punch at somebody else? Technically speaking you could be considered mentally unbalanced.

Did your doctor prescribe you an SSRI, sleep aid, anti-depressant, anti-anxiety medication? Well then you make the list as well.

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%?

Back to the non-stop coverage on the news...

How do you take away a right that is so thoroughly ingrained into the consciousness of a group of people? Easy. You make them want to give that right away - so that you get it away from them without a single drop of blood being spilled. You spin, spin, spin and use the media to so inundate people with information overload that they react in the manner you desire them to. You expose them to a particular type of story so often and with such ferocity that they overload and make emotional reactions.

Do you really want this guy



and those like him not only to take lives... but to also be used to trick us out of what cannot be taken away from us?

The choice here is yours America.

~Heff

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%?

I believe that nearly 100% of us are eligible for meds. and a small space via the state or fed. I speak from experience. I have seen the belly of the beast and all have problems. Just take a look at the new psyco evaluation guidelines.

With that said who wants to start a militia with me?

To pretend there hasn't been the opportunistic use of events on both sides is disingenuous

NRA Sought Donations in Days After Colorado

Shootings

Three days after a gunman calling himself the Joker from the Batman series shot dead 12 people in a suburban Denver movie theater, the National Rifle Association sent out a letter asking for money.

www.bloomberg.com...

reply to post by RealSpoke


A very valid point! The defining difference for me is that funding the NRA is a choice for me, owning a gun is one of my Constitutional rights.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

A very valid point! The defining difference for me is that funding the NRA is a choice for me, owning a gun is one of my Constitutional rights.

~Heff

Donating to the NRA is a right as well...

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

A very valid point! The defining difference for me is that funding the NRA is a choice for me, owning a gun is one of my Constitutional rights.

~Heff

Of course, we also know that it is documented fact that the framers of the Constitution didn't get everything right. Slavery, Women's Rights, and Voting Rights just to name a few. The truth is that we live in wildly different times than the framers did...and we have already "infringed" on the 2nd amendment by not allowing people to own things like missles and stealth bombers...so we have socially accepted that times are different and certain "arms" need to be restricted.

And you are using an Appeal To Authority to validate one view and discount the others...but the Authority you are appealing to has been shown in the past to be flawed, and thus is a fallacious argument.

There are two clear views on this subject, and both sides are using these tragedies to attempt to push their agenda. Both are "right" in the minds of those that hold them. Neither are morally wrong like Slavery or restricting women't rights, neither can be shown to be logically correct by default, and neither can successfully use an appeal to authority.

So what we are left with is purely opinion. And like any issue decided based purely on opinion...eventually society will decide whether or not to reverse the current state. The current state right now is that people can own guns under the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment that has already been infringed upon by restricting more deadly "arms" than guns. Society right now agrees in the majority that this should be left the way it is. Perhaps in the future, that may change, but right now I don't see people who support gun ownership have anything to worry about.

However, it is not illegal or wrong for anyone to express their opinion on the matter, especially when tragedies like this happen....it is the logical time to have the discussion.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I don't see a biased appeal to authority on my behalf. If it exists it was unintentional. The quote, from me, that you replied to was about my right to bears arms as legally bestowed upon me upon the Framers. The NRA issue has no Constitutional context - other than possibly aspect of commerce.

The main point of my OP is that the government does not like us being armed as it allows us to protect ourselves from their abuses and they know it - red and blue alike.

And, yes, the Framers got many things wrong... but the Supreme court has upheld the second amendment twice during the current administration:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

~Heff

reply to post by RealSpoke


It's hard to argue that the nra is on the pro 2nd amendment side.
Your stats only further prove that nra has been bought and sold.

reply to post by Hefficide

I don't see a biased appeal to authority on my behalf. If it exists it was unintentional. The quote, from me, that you replied to was about my right to bears arms as legally bestowed upon me upon the Framers. The NRA issue has no Constitutional context - other than possibly aspect of commerce.

Freedom of speech is the the first amendment. Therefore, supporting NRA is exercising your Freedom of speech. It is a right.

The main point of my OP is that the government does not like us being armed as it allows us to protect ourselves from their abuses and they know it - red and blue alike.

No, the government is NOT a single entity. A "government" is a abstract concept that can not "like" anything.

If you are talking about the "people" that are in the government, then some are for tighter restrictions and some are against.

And, yes, the Framers got many things wrong... but the Supreme court has upheld the second amendment twice during the current administration:

So, you are saying, that "the government", who you just denounced as anti-2nd amendment, has upheld the thing that you are saying they are trying to destroy?

reply to post by Hefficide

The main point of my OP is that the government does not like us being armed as it allows us to protect ourselves from their abuses and they know it - red and blue alike.

Can you remember a time where the people have used their arms to protect themselves from an abuse of power from the government?

I can not think of a single example in the recent, or non-recent, United States history where the people have used their "arms" to stop the government from abusing their power.

Now that leaves us with a couple options...either the government has not ever abused their power or being armed really isn't a deterent for the government to abuse their powers.

And to make my position clear, I am not anti-gun ownership, I am pro-gun regulation...stricter than what we currently have. And I justify stricter regulations with the fact that the "right to bear arms" has already been infringed upon with social approval.

reply to post by deadeyedick


How is the NRA not pro-second amendment? All they do is lobby against any type of gun regulations.

But yeah, they're bought by the gun corporations..

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


One that comes to mind quickly is Wounded Knee.. But the premise is more couched in a preventative nature. Our rights are eroding rapidly even with an armed population. Take away our only real defense against totalitarian control and it will happen. Maybe not this year, and maybe not the next. But it wouldn't take long.

~Heff

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Freedom of speech is the the first amendment. Therefore, supporting NRA is exercising your Freedom of speech. It is a right.

Whether or not financing an organization is "freedom of speech" or not is something a person much higher up the food chain than I would have to decide. I know there are people going to jail for funding "terrorist" organizations. If any of those people have won their cases based upon the first amendment, I have not heard about it.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

No, the government is NOT a single entity. A "government" is a abstract concept that can not "like" anything.
If you are talking about the "people" that are in the government, then some are for tighter restrictions and some are against.

Agreed to a degree. The Government is many departments working in accord. Opinions within those groups vary - but agendas are not alien to the process.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

So, you are saying, that "the government", who you just denounced as anti-2nd amendment, has upheld the thing that you are saying they are trying to destroy?

What I'm saying is that the Framers were wise to create a government of checks and balances - so that when one wing crosses the line, there are others to prevent it or undo the damage.

~Heff

reply to post by RealSpoke


Well they are lobbied by both sides.
It's a give and take relationship they have with the constitution.
They are the best we have that's why i purpose a National Firearms League.

reply to post by deadeyedick


When has the NRA ever lobbied FOR gun control? I'm pretty sure that's just about never.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Can you remember a time where the people have used their arms to protect themselves from an abuse of power from the government?

Civil War 1860- 65 Whole lot of guns used to fight abuse of power by the Federal Government.

- States rights

Utah Territory 1857- 58 Whole lot of guns used to fight abuse of power by the Federal Government.


-Religious Freedom

There are many more...

ETA: OKS Please don't throw up the moral argument about slavery etc... Not the point of the thread. You asked for examples - there are many. Also ref your thoughts on Wounded Knee - the outcome is as irrelevant as your perceived agreement/acceptance of their cause.

The fact is they (the people in question) had a legitimate grievance that and the government ignored them to the point they felt their only recourse was violence. It's what happens when people are pushed too far.

reply to post by Hefficide


WACO was filled with guns and they had no way to stop that government tyranny. Half of Americans are fat and can't even aim properly. There is no way they are going to stop any form of organized military force. All they would have to do is drone bomb us.

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.

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. . . . . . .

reply to post by RealSpoke


Not lobbied for but taken lobbing funds to get further restrictions on firearms and more than likely they will be turning their back on upcoming ammo regulations.
As i said it has been a give and take relationship or else i would have a non permitted silencer on my ruger 22lr now.