Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

reply to post by beezzer


Nah, I've said a few times that I would oppose a government gun collection program.

I would love, though, a populist movement aimed at decreasing gun ownership. More of a general agreement among the people that our gun culture is backward. If pro gun people were considered pariahs, their numbers would decrease.

This will never happen, of course, as long as nations engage in arms races on a macro scale similar to the the ideology of the American public that one must defend themselves against worst case scenario. The distrust of the international community trickles down.

World peace is possible and probable as new generations distance themselves from historical conflicts. Assuming that major conflict is avoided in coming decades.

If there is no major war between now and 2030, most people will look at guns with much more distaste.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


I agree with a lot of this.

Forcing people to behave at a high standard creates a false morality, but I'm of the radical opinion that left to their own designs in a peaceful environment people will naturally progress to a higher ethic. Federal government micro managing every single citizen is a recipe for disaster, causing many to feel oppressed even when they aren't.

reply to post by RealSpoke


I do care about people in the ghetto or even the rural poor.

But what can we do? I want more than anything else to lift our peoples (of all creeds) out of the gutter but it appears to me the "leadership" that everyone accepts so blindly wants ghettos and wants poor people and wants violence over petty reasons.

Look at their plans for the globe. They essentially seem to want to turn the whole world into some huge ghetto where everyone except the aristocracy live desperate and miserable existences while they wine and dine on our graves.

And this is the watered down version, in case people thought I was getting real pessimistic.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

I agree with a lot of this.

Forcing people to behave at a high standard creates a false morality, but I'm of the radical opinion that left to their own designs in a peaceful environment people will naturally progress to a higher ethic. Federal government micro managing every single citizen is a recipe for disaster, causing many to feel oppressed even when they aren't.

Well, how can the Govt legislate morality when they have no morality to speak of ?

That's like listening to a thief about where you should hide your money.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I tend to differ with much of ATS when it comes to the morality of the gov't. I'd say the the proportion of good to bad in the character of the influential isn't much different than the common Joe.

It's just that their bad side gets amplified in the spotlight.

Let's look at our society realistically, it's not perfect, but it's certainly not an expression of absolute tyranny.

I'd also like to propose that taking an overly cynical attitude toward your society limits the ability to prosper. I'm pretty sure that many people born in the lower classes go on to live very satisfactory lives in this world.

As it relates to this thread, I'm saying that the goal of gun regulation that seems to be popular right now has an element of concern for public safety and well being that exceeds the opposing motivation of oppressive dominance.

Originally posted by MassOccurs

I'd also like to propose that taking an overly cynical attitude toward your society limits the ability to prosper. I'm pretty sure that many people born in the lower classes go on to live very satisfactory lives in this world.

As it relates to this thread, I'm saying that the goal of gun regulation that seems to be popular right now has an element of concern for public safety and well being that exceeds the opposing motivation of oppressive dominance.

I disagree.

My cynical attitude is not the cause of the world's detriments, it's the result of observing their existence in the first place. And I'm only cynical because I just woke up and have no coffee yet actually.

I think the goal of regulating other people isn't for public safety anymore. It's gone way past that after I don't know, the 100 thousandth law was passed.

Now the goal of speaking out against other people's natural rights and seeking government infringement of them, is more of a self-promotional type exploit. It's a way to feign self-righteousness.

But really they are just trying to tell me how to live my life.
And I don't agree. It's my choice what rights I choose to exert and no one can do anything about it.

Originally posted by MassOccurs

It's just that their bad side gets amplified in the spotlight.

No, their bad side screws my life and regulates everything I do.
They ruin the economy, start wars constantly, etc.

I am talking mass negativity worldwide, not just this limited scope you are falsely claiming.

They are bad guys/gals because they sit around and bark orders to everyone else, telling us how to live, and putting us in jail if we don't play along.

Then they go home to their cozy really nice houses and sit around enjoying their lives after they ruined thousands of other people's lives.

That's why they get a bad rap.

Also we aren't talking about the 20million government employees, we are talking about the 2000-5000 highest ranking most influential people.

Most of those govt employees get screwed like the rest of us, if you haven't noticed.

reply to post by muzzleflash


These 2,000 - 5,000 most influential people came from where?

In order to get in that position they must have a lineage to individuals that were the greatest geniuses of their time, especially in technology and politics and probably also Gnostic type stuff. It's no accident they are influential. They are brilliant and educated beyond what a commoner considers possible.

Throughout history they have taken populations from nomad, to agriculture, to industry, to today, all while keeping morality somewhere in the public conscious through religion (as brainwashing as it seems, it convinced many not to kill or steal).

As in any group of thousands of people there would be varying factions, not one uniform ideology. Especially considering their intellectual priority.

A society has been set up that is allowing millions and millions to have a family, an education, and opportunity in the context of moral ideals. Movies and books have kids aspire to be the hero.

The downside to all of this is the reaction people like you and me have when they realize that there is a severely powerful element to the governing system that is hidden. But let's be honest, it's not that hidden. You figured it out!

The real shame is when a person who realizes that complete honesty is not given to the public, they give up on the entire system. But they can't show themselves, people would freak out at how rich and powerful the highest level of humanity really is. Anyway, they seem to be moving the public paradigm to a place where disclosure would be more practical.

As I see it.


Yes, the government is telling you how to live your life to an extent. But it's much more suggestive than a commandment. You can't deny the progress that has been made.

It is the progress of the last few decades in terms of science that leads me to believe our rulers are majority for developing humanity into a species with a higher level of civilization. As 99% of us have no clue how to do that, some level of manipulation is necessary.

In their opinion, is taking away guns part of that? Definitely a possibility.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

WE the people do not have millions of dollars to buy drones. We the people do not have missiles. We the people cannot own tanks that are not de-armed. We the people cannot buy bombs. We the people do not have nukes.

Read your bill of rights and constitution we the people make up the government and pay the saleries of the gov.
It has been forgotten that we are the true owners of this system but this will not always be the case.

It is mine and your cousins,brothers,aunts,uncles,moms,dads, and our neighbors that serve in the military and pay the taxes that fund the grand illusion.

If the higher up delusioned leaders are not scared then Why buy so many bullets for the people in gov. that they believe will follow through with the elite plans of nwo.
If you buy into the frog in the pot with heat slowly rising routine then you have no experience with the majority of frogs.

reply to post by deadeyedick


Doesn't get said enough, people have the power to govern themselves.

Worrying about what government is going to do is a waste of time if not balanced with an equal or greater amount of energy spent deliberating and acting on your own effective potential.

While I am anti-gun, I am absolutely in favor of pro gun citizens taking action to defend their position.

While I am anti-gun, I am pro freedom in greater amounts.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

Forcing people to behave at a high standard creates a false morality, but I'm of the radical opinion that left to their own designs in a peaceful environment people will naturally progress to a higher ethic. Federal government micro managing every single citizen is a recipe for disaster, causing many to feel oppressed even when they aren't.

It IS oppression. Oppression can be simply a feeling or it can be cruelty or being kept down by force, or just force alone. You speak of forcing a behavior, that is oppression. I can agree it creates a false morality but I will disagree that it is a high standard that is being forced, because essentially people in the US are being forced to behave like jack asses. They certainly are not being forced to think for themselves.

People's options in most matters are all laid out before them. At certain ice cream parlors there might be a choice of 31 flavors but in most instances that is the biggest decision one is allowed to make. Beyond that it often becomes a matter of circumventing or over-stepping the law. Oppression.

It is the progress of the last few decades in terms of science that leads me to believe our rulers are majority for developing humanity into a species with a higher level of civilization. As 99% of us have no clue how to do that, some level of manipulation is necessary.

You just said how. It is not such a radical opinion that in a peaceful environment people will naturally progress to a higher ethic. That pretty much summarizes it. But it is not a higher level of civilization nor a peaceful environment that is wanted by our controllers. Economics rules these decisions. The Drug War is a perfect example of how legislation transforms a nearly worthless commodity into a profit-maker on so many levels with the added bonus of providing a gateway into your livingroom and complete erosion of your privacies. A quote from a recent post of mine:

What are these substances worth in a free market? Not much, it takes prohibition to make it all really profitable. Thus when we use law enforcement, the judicial system, incarceration, parole and probation it really starts putting the bacon on the table for many people. But that is just the economics of it, it gets better.

We have declared these substances such a menace that they justify no-knock raids, surveillance, searches, and a loss of all privacy just on the hunch you might be involved too. It is justification for getting "poochie" shot in your living room without so much as a "beg pardon" if they got the wrong house, and once inside it is so likely junior may have a joint or two stashed in his sock drawer that whatever mistaken identity brought the authorities intruding into your home it can all be justified with that kind of find.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


I hope I didn't give the impression that I am completely satisfied with American society...

When it comes to forcing action and manipulation, it's impossible to avoid that in totality, and sometimes an initial forced action can lead to a greater benefit.

American's do end up acting like jackasses if you look at the population en mass. But our needles in the haystack are pretty sharp. We have unparalleled information access on our internet, and unrivaled freedom of speech with this forum being a nice example.

I often imagine a power broker looking at the world in the year 1500 and saying, "Look at the world. It's 1500. There is a vast population of humans and they are divided purely among ethnic lines. There is cyclical conflict among the tribes and states. How do we avoid inevitable conflict along ethnic lines that will destroy humanity beyond return as states expand and militarily capabilities increase? "

"We should create a new nation! One without an ethnic heritage but a lineage of philosophical idealism! We will bring people of all ethnicity to this nation to make it the most diverse on Earth. We will funnel the top technology to it's marketplace, give it an army greater than the rest combined, and ultimately make it the template for which a peaceful global society will follow!"

"And maybe we'll take their guns."

What I'm proposing is that historical manipulation was undertaken painstakingly in the name of advancement. Could America have formed on it's own, in the sense that it is a diverse nation that is the most powerful in the world? I said that people will progress to a higher ethic with freedom in a peaceful environment, but ethnic conflicts threaten the existence of peaceful environment. And America is a buffer to ethnic conflict (as of today, obviously not disregarding early history, but possibly understating effects).

If 500 years of destructive behavior could lead to 1,000 years of progress and prosperity, is it worth it? I think we may be reaching a critical point in which human society may breakthrough to a higher level if the common class can accept a period of difficulty in initial change.

My thinking sometimes lacks coherence and contradicts itself, I'm aware of that. All in good discussion.

Some more relevant mental health - spree killing information I've dredged up:

Between 2009 and 2011, states cumulatively cut more than $1.8 billion from their budgets for mental health services, according to a report released in 2011 by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. At least two-thirds of states significantly slashed spending for services for children and adults living with mental illness.

To be sure, a person with mental illness is not de facto a violent person. Nor are they likely to cause human carnage by embarking on a shooting rampage. But spree killers share a number of traits, and one of them is being troubled. In the aftermath of one of the most infamous incidents of spree killing—the Columbine High School rampage in 1999—the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center examined 37 school attacks involving 41 student assailants from 1974 and 2000. They found a disturbing mix of mental illness and inaction:

93 percent of assailants exhibited behavior that caused a school official, parent, or law enforcement officer to be concerned before the attack.

81 percent of assailants let at least one person know that they were thinking of or planning an attack.

78 percent of the assailants “exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts.”

66 percent of attackers were known to be real threats by at least one person; in nearly every case, the person who knew this was a peer, friend, or sibling.

34 percent of the assailants had a mental health evaluation prior to the attack.

17 percent of the assailants “had been diagnosed with mental health or behavior disorder prior to the attack.”

Source

My first point is that, as stated above, the severely overtaxed and underfunded ( nearly non-existent IMO ) mental health infrastructure losing 1.8 billion dollars in funding - which will only make matters worse going forward.

But there are very telling signs here... read those top four percentages again. They all demonstrate that these attacks were totally avoidable - not by removing guns from anybody... But simply from recognizing warning signs that were very obviously present.

But when we begin to generalize about mental health, as these events unfold, pay attention to to those last, lower figures... that these people had a history with mental health diagnosis. This is where the danger in letting "mental health" become a buzzword for gun control. The vast majority of people with mental health related issues are not dangerous. These statistics not only support this position - but also demonstrate what gutting mental health funds accomplishes... it lets the truly dangerous people walk right through the system - be recognized as a thread - and still accomplish what they'd discussed doing.

Gun control cannot stop problems if we have a system that won't even red flag a person who says they are going to go on a rampage - before the first shot is even fired.

~Heff

These types of statistics could easily be used to argue in favor of a universal health care system, especially considering the correlation between low income and mental illness.

Mental health side by side with gun violence plays heavy into the hands of increasing central government.

reply to post by MassOccurs


Ok seeing as your towering intelect is so far beyond the rest of us i have a question, do you really beleive that a blanket ban on fire arms would really put an end to violent crime?
i can assure you this is not the case,just look at europe, most contries have tight gun control but it never stopped people finding inovative ways to kill each other.
you also seem to be ignoring the issue of your constitutional right to bear arms.
If you let your government ride roughshod over your rights in this,how long do you think itll be before your constitution becomes a relic of the past and totaly irrellevent?
you give up your constitution at your peril and the right to bear arms is a big part of it,
wether you as a college know it all hippy like it or not.
you do know crimimals and drug dealers would still be armed to the teeth right?
While the scenario you paint of "why dont we all just get along" is admirable,its about as likley as me stepping in rocking horse sh*it on the pavement and incredibly naieve.

reply to post by erictcartman


I'm flattered you noticed my Empire State Building intellect.

I'm not in favor of a blanket ban of firearms, I think people should take it upon themselves and move beyond guns within freedom.

I do actually think we should look at mass political reform and a new constitution, and based on the confidence gained from your post, I nominate myself to chair the committee.

And you're right, as long as there are people who hold no hope at the prospect of a world where people drop conflicts rooted in the past, it can't happen. My interest is trending the situation toward betterment. Part of that, in my opinion, is finding protection against tyranny in the form of stronger communities as opposed to a pistol under the pillow and a shotgun in the closet.

College know it all hippie... that's a quote from the true Eric Cartman isn't it? The undertones of South Park are generally in line with my idealism.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

Nah, countries that ban guns have a much lower gun homicide rate. If you make something extremely hard to get then even most criminals will not have access to them.

Well, yes, if guns are made extremely hard to get, the usual result will be that gun crime would not be AS high. If it is made nearly impossible to obtain baseball bats, then crimes committed with baseball bats will not be as high. However, the availability of an object has nothing to do with violence - just as guns and baseball bats have nothing to do with violence. A gun is no more violent than the baseball bat - both are simply objects and objects are not violent; people are violent.

Most Violent Country in Europe: Britain - notice the list of Countries in the article with the highest violent crime rates. Now many of them allow gun ownership? This list shows the number of guns per capita by Country. Compare the violent crime rate of the Countries in the U.K. article to the guns per capita in the second link - removing or limiting guns has nothing to do with stopping or limiting violent crime;

So, while I am certainly not accusing, it does strike me that you seem to be splitting hairs on this one. Limiting criminals' access to something has nothing to do with reducing the overall rate of crime. In fact, it often IS the ownership of guns among the law-abiding that reduces the rate of crime. When the criminal does not know who might be armed, it WILL cause the criminal to consider more carefully. An example would be the current trend of "the 'Knock Out' game." Who do these out of control people target? They target the weak, the elderly, Asians and effeminate homosexual males. Why? Because those people are less likely to have the ability to fight back AND are the most likely NOT to be carrying a weapon.

While this is just a letter, it makes a valid point. For purposes of comparison, I tried to find statistics for incidents of the Knock Out game in Virginia, where they DO maintain a Citizens Militia and, while it's possible that I could have omitted an exact word or phrase from my search string, I could find NO incidents of the Knock Out game in Virginia. Coincidence? I would willingly bet not.

Legal gun ownership does NOT promote crime; it REDUCES crime. Our 2A rights level the playing field against criminals, against tyranny of any form and many other potential circumstances. The best example of that lately is this - the one where the 71 y/o man stopped 2 armed thugs. Granted, I would have preferred to provide a more neutral source; however, this particular site had the best article on the matter in that it contains the perspective of one of the perpetrators. I read over that portion several times and to say that the expectations and assumptions of the perpetrator are not reality-based would be an understatement.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I don't know, because we surely could not overpower the government if we wanted to with guns. The NRA has a much larger agenda, which is that of corporate gun profit. That is why there are no gun laws that will be passed anytime soon.

If the first sentence in that paragraph is true, then please explain to me why all the ammunition, weapons and riot gear are being purchased by the government. If they had NO fear of what the citizens could do, why are they protecting themselves from it? Why have they ordered (and continue to order) millions of MREs, bottled water and blankets? And if it is NOT fear of the people, then what IS causing them to order those things? They've ordered MORE THAN A BILLION ROUNDS of .40 caliber hollow point ammunition. Hollow point rounds are made and meant for one thing and one thing only - specifically to inflict the greatest amount of damage to a human being. Do they suspect an invasion? By whom? If so, why aren't we being told?

Again, 88.8 guns per 100 residents in this Country. And you think the citizens of the U.S. could not overpower the government if they wanted to? Obviously, the government is not nearly as comfortable with that sentiment as you.

Are you saying the the agenda of the NRA is larger than any other current agenda? If so, I could not disagree more. If that is not what you are saying, perhaps you wouldn't mind clarifying your statement?

There's opportunism every where with every situation. Especially on CNN. CNN never shows a positive story involving a gun. Never. Only the nutcase crimes get the air time. 4 years ago I shot and killed a man trying to invade my home with a shotgun. I pulled off 5 rounds, hit him 4 times. Took 4 more shots at the one still out side.

It did'nt even get a write up in the local paper. Not even a paragraph. Now if this man who invaded our home would have shot-gunned my wife and I to death. It would have made national headlines, CNN would have talked about it for days if not weeks. Headlines would have been " Home Invaders Shot Gun Family " film at 11;00.

There was no headline saying, " Home Owner Shoots Home Invader" Who's in the wrong? discussion at 11:00

7 out of 10 Americans own more than one gun. Do the math folks. That's some extreme fire power in the hands of the populace. A populace that's coming to the end of their ropes.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, it really wouldn't. We do not have an organized militia of gun owners, we have Bob in his basement that collects Ak-47's. Americans are out of shape, can't even run, can't hit moving targets and are ignorant about military tactics.

While it is true that the "Bobs" or Bubba's exist, there are a surprising large population of veterans who are in shape, who quietly work and go about their business. They may belong to groups like OathKeepers or belong to smaller, less noticeable groups.

I would imagine that any attempt on the part of the government to impose decrees that fly in the face of personal freedoms would be met with surprisingly effective opposition.

(caveat; I am aware of current laws that have flown in the face of current freedoms, I'm speaking of more overt forms)

Great points, Beezer!

According to the 2010 Census, there are 21.8 MILLION U.S. Veterans alive and kickin'. That number does not include all those in militias, either. Nor does it include those who have made a lifetime hobby of studying military tactics purely as a matter of interest. If we go with just the 21.8 million figure and we say that each one could train only 10 (and training only 10 others could be done in relatively short order), that would bring the non-ignorant of military tactics up to 281,000,000.

As of yesterday, our population is 314,159,265, leaving a difference of 33,159,265. The very elderly, the fully disabled, the incarcerated and the children can easily account for that 33 million and possibly 2 or 3 times that. There are 88.8 guns per every 100 citizens. The math, even for one as math impaired as I, becomes increasingly clear.

Please do not misunderstand and think that I am one of those who hopes something horrible will happen because I do not. I pray that it will never come to what many believe it will; but, at the same time, I also believe history has shown it to be an inevitability and that, while my prayers may in some way be answered, I feel certain that they will not be answered in the way I hope they will.

My grandfather hunted until he was in his '80s, far beyond the age of being able to run easily, but nothing he wanted to shoot escaped being shot. While many Americans *may* not have the ability to run, it would not take long before they could be in shape if, for no other reason, out of sheer necessity. I've seen quite a few 'fat' men run quite well, too.

In addition to your statement of "...decrees that fly in the face of personal freedoms would be met with surprisingly effective opposition," I would similarly imagine that many of those who currently do not espouse firearm ownership or use would quickly change their minds if they saw, using an extreme example, their children being hauled off for 'education' or their family members threatened ... or even their internet abilities taken away.

As another potential point of interest, I will tell you that I do not even own a gun. I grew up using a gun from a very early age; guns and the responsible use and ownership of same were a part of my childhood training. However, due to a physical condition, it would not only be impractical for me to own a firearm, it could potentially put me in danger if a burglar entered my home and got to it before I could or took it away from me due to being able to overpower me. That said, I will do everything within my power to preserve the rights of the law-abiding and the responsible to retain their Second Amendment rights.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
WE the people do not have millions of dollars to buy drones. We the people do not have missiles. We the people cannot own tanks that are not de-armed. We the people cannot buy bombs. We the people do not have nukes.

I'm taking an oppositional viewpoint to yours solely for the purpose debate and discourse - I am in no way attacking you, personally.

Why do the people need millions of dollars to buy drones when we can just hack them? Granted, the drone was not a government drone; nonetheless, a group of college kids hacked it using less than $1,000 of materials. We have people a lot smarter than a bunch of college kids. I've no doubt it could be done relatively easily by someone with the know how and a cause and that we have a LOT of those 'someones.'

Do you think those who own tanks could not find someone to re-arm them (or even do it themselves)? Have you considered that it would be entirely possible for a group of 'soldiers' to take tanks from the enemy and use them against that enemy? It happens all the time in war.

I side with the OP as it pertains to missiles and nukes - the use of those items would be fully counterproductive to our government for the exact reasons Heff cites.

Who needs to buy bombs? While I absolutely will not research for the information (much less post it in a public forum) nor do I know how to do it, making a bomb isn't rocket science. What do you think IEDs are? We have much more at our disposal here than do those fighting for their own beliefs in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they can make them there with the materials they have at hand, I assure you there are those here who could make much more effective ones.

So, from my oppositional POV, every point in your post can be easily rendered null.