Gun Control: An Unworkable Cry for Change.

reply to post by xxclaro


Although it is not my thread, I would still like to reply and to thank you for your input...


While pondering the many valid points, logical questions and intelligent rhetoric that has been posted in these last few days, I can't help but to reflect on the very reasons that I am doing so, on a conspiracy website...

A few simple facts, that when added to the mix, really stir the mind and at the same time, bring a bit of clarity to the big picture. (And, please bear in mind, that none of this, is meant to minimize, belittle or make light of this or any other tragedy, as they have been presented to us...)

1) As of this writing, (and quite frankly, it may never occur) we have absolutely no proof, that Adam Lanza actually murdered 20 Connecticut children, in cold blood. And try as the media may, there are still many portrayals that just don't add up, coming out at this time.

2) We will soon see, if this story has been embellished or fabricated in part or all together, the WHY for it in the first place. Keep this in mind, if and when the Govt. comes out with a radical plan to abolish mass shootings.

3) The term "military grade" when referring to rifles and handguns, has only ONE definition. Reliability! Mil-Spec, or military specifications, DO NOT make a gun more deadly. It is simply made more reliable! It fires the same bullets that you can buy at Wal-Mart for your ranch rifle. But, thanks to the Geneva Convention, the projectiles that the military MUST use in battle, are actually less lethal, than much that is readily available to the public.

4) Why are so many ATS members not from the U.S. (present company excluded) so vehemently outspoken about this tragedy and how we need to fix what they perceive as the problem? What exactly are the media in those countries saying about it? Does their version differ from ours?

5) Have you ever been to a Zoo, and viewed an animal such as a lion, or tiger, who was once free to roam the wilds? But after realizing that he or she, is now captive, just lies around lifeless and lethargic, a shell of the greatness that it once was? That is what those who aspire to control us, can't wait to accomplish. But as long as we retain our freedom, our voracity remains intact. And those cowards would not dare approach us directly with their plans...

This is the reality that we live in!


Just a few of the things that have jumped out at me, as of late...I will add to these, as I see fit.

Jefwane:

I'm personally working on a thread that is similar to the last paragraph of goofyfoot's post and hope to have it posted at some point tomorrow.

Hi Jef, thanks for your encouraging remarks, I'm sure GoOfYFoOt will share equally in my sentiment. Please let us know when you have your posting up and running, I'll see if there's something I can contribute.

xxClaro:

As the OP stated,before we can expect gun owners to willingly give up their firearms,we must find a way to insure that they no longer need those firearms for protection of family and self.

Hi Claro, thanks for joining in with us, it's great to have you here. You provide a commentary that brings much discussion, many thoughts and perceptions that need to be explored, cogently, rationally, reasonably, if we are to make any kind of headway towards a plausible solution.

This,to my mind, is just not possible.

With great appreciation I must disagree with you, but not without showing a deep respect to the profound hurdles that necessarily need to be overcome. I would agree with you that in the short-term, and as things stand, it is nigh on impossible, but in the long-term, I don't believe it is so. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the solution can only be found in one of the two following ways...the federal way, or the American people way.

Both are fraught with a danger of disconnection, of radical separation and polarisation, of weaking the adhesion of the glue that bonds American society. The former choice is one that will be seen to disenfranchise the American people from their rights, and thus will be viewed as further corrosion upon their liberties and freedoms. The latter choice, the one that I would prefer if I were an American, would be a more grassroots solution, would take longer, but would be driven by the American people, for the American people. The solution really does lay within the heart and mind of everyone of you, but the choices, the introspection, the necessary change will be hard.

The federal way would be forced, and bring with it all manner of deep suspicions and distrust. It would raise a 'hue and cry' for the protection of 'liberties' and 'freedoms', and it would polarise the American people, pitting the ideology of each American against the other. The attack upon Sandy Hook Elementary has already forced Obama's hand...he has to respond, he has no choice. The thing is, he has to act swiftly, he has to ride the wave of distress and distraught that flows around the country. It will embolden him to cut deep into the political pariah that gun control is. The presidential office will feel mandated to place radical restrictions on the sale and distribution of 'semi' and 'automatic' guns. Whatever he does, it will be called a 'solution', but it will not be 'the' solution.

The 'real' one and only 'true' solution is to be found at grassroots level. The solution will not work coming from the 'top' down, it has to come from the 'bottom' up. It is in the communities, at street level, where the disarming has to voluntarily begin. You could call it 'The Newtown Initiative', a long-term plan for the whole of America.

Communities have to reach out to each other, and not view each other as separate competitors. Communities have to become an interconnected web for piecemeal disarming. Delegations will need to be elected with representatives from all walks of life, and from all levels of society, with group-run, group-decision making capacity. No one person must make any decision, only group vote will decide. A mission goal will need to be written out of an agreed nation-wide consensus, and it must be a social promise to all victims of mass and isolated shootings. It must be capable of dissolving and crossing all boundaries. It has to be an ideology for the preservation of life. Above all else, the dynamism of the movement has to remain at grassroots level.

The main aim of the 'Newtown Initiative' would be to create dialogue first and foremost, across boundaries, across whatever divide exists. It cannot be forced. it has to have the heart of altruism. It will have its enemies, its detractors, and for many periods, it will seem as if nothing is getting done, that it is a failure from the start. It will not be true.

It will be neither anti-gun, nor pro-gun, it will embrace both stances, for without doing so, dialogue will not be able to take place. You must first disarm the ideology of the gun before you can disarm its holster, and that means discussing the 'need' for it, and the 'fear' of not having it. Americans have to learn to not fear each other.

(I will continue this diatribe later on...life intrudes) Peace.

Yes and yes, please do, Jef...

The more time and energy I invest, into the soul-searching required to establish the proper vernacular to express my point of view sufficiently, the more it completely drains me. But, I feel that it is of the ultimate importance to this discussion, and it's progress, that we are each considering the exact same issues!

Speaking strictly from my own personal views, I feel that guns and gun ownership, are just not properly recognized, by those who oppose them, for what they really are. So, I attempt to offer my sagacity...

I view my guns the same as I do any other right. Unfortunately, unlike many of my other rights, this right doesn't remain inertly, harbored in my consciousness until I choose the proper time and place to exercise it.
I also view this right, much like one views an insurance policy. As in, you truly hope that you never need to use it, but through prudence, it must be maintained at the ready.
I view my guns as a work of art. And, in a utopia would be rather comfortable displaying them like any fine sculpture or painting.
Like many things that we own, there doesn't necessarily have to exist a "need". It can simply be a want, or a what-if that prompts it's purchase. Our lives are surrounded by such possessions.
I don't strictly view my guns, as nothing more than a tool designed to take another life. Although I know that it is capable of doing so. As are many, many other objects in and around my home.
I compare my guns to my automobile. They are designed to facilitate a function. A machine, that offers a convenience and has no discernable care, whether it is being used or not. They would be just as content, resting well-oiled in a strongbox, as they would be rusting to pieces in a damp cellar.
My guns are not evil. They do not contemplate being used in murderous rampages, or to slaughter opposing armies, regardless of the reasons to, as some would deem fit.
The truth being told, if you really want to eradicate death by a firearm, just eliminate lead, copper, steel, tungsten and all of the other metals, that bullets are made from. Because it's the actual bullet that causes a life to cease to exist. Without them, all of the guns in the world would be absolutely useless for anything more than a blunt object. I guess they would make good fenceposts or paperweights...Or, we could melt them all down and start making real cars, again!

No...the more I think about it, the less I believe that guns are the problem. I can see through the political rhetoric, and there are a lot of pundits creating and using the fear of them to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves. I wonder where this unnatural fear of the gun comes from? I mean, there are a lot of things on this planet that can kill you. I can't see why one potentially lethal item would cause more severe panic attacks than the next one?

I've never heard of someone "freaking out" over the brandishing of a sword. And you won't hear about anyone walking out of the hospital 3 hours later, after a sword attack.

No, I firmly believe that the issue still remains embedded in the mental state of those who purpetrate these crimes. We just have to figure out a logical way to determine just how someone could consider something like murdering a room full of innocent children, and figure out the best way to make sure that they never get the chance.

(Continuation of earlier post...)

First dialogue must focus introspectively, based around the question...why does anyone need a gun? At this point, the 2nd amendment right (something I will discuss later) is irrelevant, because you are not discussing the 'right' to have a gun, but the 'need' for it. List all the reasons for the belief in the need to have a gun and you will identify each problem that needs to be fixed before any kind of disarming can be discussed. The list of reasons arrived at will then need to be separated into the 'responsibility of officialdom', and the 'responsibility of grassroots'.

These responsibilities must not be viewed as separate and distinct from each other, but interrelated, requiring joint endeavour and cooperation. You will need to engage with gun manufacturers, gun associations and clubs and affiliations, gun stores, in fact, all businesses related to the gun, as they too must have their voice heard. Engage. Discuss. Discover...and break the inertia.

reply to post by elysiumfire


I have perceived, what I interpret, as possible entry-points into your fortifications. I base this assessment on what appears to be careful selection, on your part, as to which of my statements you have responded to.

If this is not the case, please, in your own time, it would be greatly appreciated if you could offer some rebuttal to more of the ideas and positions that I have put forth.

Thank you for your responses, in advance. Also, shall I call you, Sir or Madam?

GoOfYFoOt:

Also, shall I call you, Sir or Madam?

Love it! I am a 'sir', but not yet knighted...waiting for England to decide to be a Republic, I am not a royalist...I am a Glenn.

...careful selection...

You may be right there? Perhaps, I am being somewhat 'selective'? Not consciously so, certainly not in hope of scoring high points against your own thinking. The raison detre behind my posts is not to win anything, but to get others to look at their own thinking and perceptions, simply to look at alternatives. If I am to engage with you, I have to understand why you think the way you do, it is not because I have some inner compulsion to defeat you in debate...it doesn't even enter my mind.

As for 'fortifications'...I have none, except of course, in the selection of a woman. No, if I am selective, it is because I home in directly to the most pertinent parts of your discourse.

...it would be greatly appreciated if you could offer some rebuttal to more of the ideas and positions that I have put forth.

I would be most happy to oblige...becareful what you wish for! What I don't want to do is make long posts containing snippets of your thinking. I prefer to unravel the overall gist of your writing and respond to that. Will get back to you soon.

Cheers Bill!

Here is what happens with gun control laws: I just read on MSN that the new York Gun law messed up, they did not provide an exclusion for cops, The NYPD are just like the citizens now they are not allowed to carry no more the 7 rounds in their pistols. I bet that gets a slurry started when they are used to carrying 15 round clips. This could get interesting real fast, seeing as the law is set to go into effect in march. The link: news.msn.com...

And it continues on, there is also now supposed to be a national boycott against all products made in NY state until this law is repealed.

Terms and Conditions of Use:

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.