Gun Ownership : Gun Control (Relevance to the Aurora Massacre Last Friday)

legit-writer

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Dec 12, 2002
1,532
1,182
I have been in Colorado for almost a week and s
omething I just saw on the news I consider to be interesting that has to do with gun control: Mitt Romney's side on gun control is that while what the idiot (Holmes) did was wrong and against the law, it did not stop him from doing it, and that enforcement is the problem and not the strictness of the law itself. Barack Obama's side on gun control is that while he understands that the second amendment is the right to bear arms, only soldiers should be carrying AK-47s, and that he feels that the laws on gun control is not strict enough. Which one do you agree with and why?
 

Gorilla

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 31, 2009
2,455
1,374
We've got a gun culture problem, and we're stuck with it. As much as I would be in favor of trying to change that through discourse and laws, I don't believe it's possible at this point. There's really no hope of ever clearing out all the weapons that are available in any of our lifetimes.

The gun proponents seem to push this idea that Aurora would've turned out better if there were other armed citizens. To which I reply, what? The attacker came prepared, he used gas to cause confusion and he was possibly wearing bullet resistant tactical gear. At this point, it seems clear he also had the superior weapon and brought plenty of ammunition. I'm to believe that people who only practice with their weapons (if they bother to learn proper use and safety at all) under ideal conditions would've been ready to deal with that? Right.... Military and police forces around the world have trouble coming up with training to acclimate personnel to the fog of combat situations, but an armed concerned citizen fully has that problem solved with what's commercially available in the way of preparation?

The whole thing seems like it's just been the same old rubbernecking at tragedy for everyday people, advertising revenue for the media, and opportunities for people with a political agenda to piggyback.

After this whole thing was over, I went to the movies, several states away from Colorado, and the cinema to see Batman had an idiotic sign up about checking backpacks and messenger bags. I guess they were saying any violence would have to be restricted to pistols, knives, and whatever else you could tape to your legs or stuff into the waist of your pants or possibly fit into a purse? It was retarded to say the least.
 

Love Goddess

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jul 12, 2012
88
54
We've got a gun culture problem, and we're stuck with it. As much as I would be in favor of trying to change that through discourse and laws, I don't believe it's possible at this point. There's really no hope of ever clearing out all the weapons that are available in any of our lifetimes.

The gun proponents seem to push this idea that Aurora would've turned out better if there were other armed citizens. To which I reply, what? The attacker came prepared, he used gas to cause confusion and he was possibly wearing bullet resistant tactical gear. At this point, it seems clear he also had the superior weapon and brought plenty of ammunition. I'm to believe that people who only practice with their weapons (if they bother to learn proper use and safety at all) under ideal conditions would've been ready to deal with that? Right.... Military and police forces around the world have trouble coming up with training to acclimate personnel to the fog of combat situations, but an armed concerned citizen fully has that problem solved with what's commercially available in the way of preparation?

The whole thing seems like it's just been the same old rubbernecking at tragedy for everyday people, advertising revenue for the media, and opportunities for people with a political agenda to piggyback.

After this whole thing was over, I went to the movies, several states away from Colorado, and the cinema to see Batman had an idiotic sign up about checking backpacks and messenger bags. I guess they were saying any violence would have to be restricted to pistols, knives, and whatever else you could tape to your legs or stuff into the waist of your pants or possibly fit into a purse? It was retarded to say the least.

You make some VERY good points.

Me personally, I don't like guns. They are dangerous, but I understand the need for them in this current gun culture we live in. Violence begets more violence. If there were others there that were armed, what could've been done? With everyone walking around with guns people would be getting shot every time some one got angry over something simple and forgot to take their meds. It's a slippery slope.

With that said, I also believe in the right of each to protect themselves and their families. But I look at the gun issue from a larger perspective. It's about disarming the citizens in order to cease any sort of resistance in the near future.. Everything is in a sad state. There really is nothing to do but get the heck out of here before it's too late. But understanding that is not feasible for most, then we need to keep our guns.

When mayhem breaks out people are going to go buck wild any and they will find guns even if they have to take out the police if it means their survival.
 

Gorilla

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 31, 2009
2,455
1,374
You make some VERY good points.

Me personally, I don't like guns. They are dangerous, but I understand the need for them in this current gun culture we live in. Violence begets more violence. If there were others there that were armed, what could've been done? With everyone walking around with guns people would be getting shot every time some one got angry over something simple and forgot to take their meds. It's a slippery slope.

With that said, I also believe in the right of each to protect themselves and their families. But I look at the gun issue from a larger perspective. It's about disarming the citizens in order to cease any sort of resistance in the near future.. Everything is in a sad state. There really is nothing to do but get the heck out of here before it's too late. But understanding that is not feasible for most, then we need to keep our guns.

When mayhem breaks out people are going to go buck wild any and they will find guns even if they have to take out the police if it means their survival.
Gun ownership in America is essentially a security blanket for adults, imho. I think it feeds into and plays off of that culture of fear.

I think we're also several centuries past the idea that armed citizens can easily over throw a well armed government/military force. Libya is a good example of needing NATO. Egypt would have also played out much differently if the military was behind Mubarak. Syrian rebels aren't doing so well against Assad's government. Like Libya, it's got a lot of visibility on the Internet and it's not pretty.

I think active and engaged citizens are much more of a deterrent to fascism and tyranny than the gun will ever be.
 

legit-writer

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Dec 12, 2002
1,532
1,182
If everyone could carry weapons, which I think is the law now, isn't that grounds for most people abusing that privilege? After all, look at what this idiot did Friday.
 

Keita Kenyatta

going above and beyond
PREMIUM MEMBER
Feb 7, 2004
5,636
3,334
No citizen with a gun has ever killed the numbers that any and all governments have done with guns. So who should I feel safer around?....the government with guns or people with guns? I'll stick with the people because I already know what's coming with the government...we see it everyday in Afraka, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Egypt and more.
 

houserunner

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Feb 12, 2010
1,071
1,155
People kill people and will find a way to kill people without a vote from you, me, or "god". If total gun control was enforced then only those that wanted to do harm would hit the black markets to accomplish what they wanted to anyway. If they could not do it as far as firearms, why not a bomb? Why not poison? Why not disease? Etc.

There is no true defense against a truly sick mind and most things are reactionary, including these gun control talks.
 

skuderjaymes

Contextualizer Synthesizer
MEMBER
Nov 2, 2009
8,818
5,854
theory to application to discussion to percussion
Occupation
independent thoughtist thinker, context linker
I have been in Colorado for almost a week and s
omething I just saw on the news I consider to be interesting that has to do with gun control: Mitt Romney's side on gun control is that while what the idiot (Holmes) did was wrong and against the law, it did not stop him from doing it, and that enforcement is the problem and not the strictness of the law itself. Barack Obama's side on gun control is that while he understands that the second amendment is the right to bear arms, only soldiers should be carrying AK-47s, and that he feels that the laws on gun control is not strict enough. Which one do you agree with and why?
One Answer: Both.

Another Answer: It's a State issue.. and it should be handled State by State. If it becomes a large enough issue in the State of Colorado, the people of Colorado will rise up and bring it down.. or move to a State that better fits their national-view. If the people of Colorado are by and large Ok with a Columbine here.. and a Dark Knight there.. then so be it. It's their State.. and the most it can be is what they are.

Yet Another Answer: People with guns are not going to give them up to people that say they shouldn't have them. It doesn't work that way. Their is way no to put the genie back in the bottle.. so the gun control question really is moot. Especially when you consider the fact that the U.S. is the largest international Arms dealer in the world. There will always be guns on American streets. American streets were actually made with guns. The only way off this train is to jump.. these tracks were laid centuries ago and it's heading where it's heading. If that's not where you want to go, you need to make some choices.

And Yet Another Answer: If I had to choose between having a gun and not having a gun, I would choose Having a gun. And if I had to choose between a handgun and an Assault Rifle.. I would choose the Assault rifle. And.. if every black church had a legal Armory in the basement.. and the law allowed us to police our own streets.. to handle our own problems.. the streets would be 1000 percent safer than they are now.


I think four answers are enough for now..

-Peace.
 

Destee

destee.com
STAFF
Jan 22, 2001
35,801
9,734
betwixt and between
destee.com
Occupation
Website Consultant
I have been in Colorado for almost a week and s
omething I just saw on the news I consider to be interesting that has to do with gun control: Mitt Romney's side on gun control is that while what the idiot (Holmes) did was wrong and against the law, it did not stop him from doing it, and that enforcement is the problem and not the strictness of the law itself. Barack Obama's side on gun control is that while he understands that the second amendment is the right to bear arms, only soldiers should be carrying AK-47s, and that he feels that the laws on gun control is not strict enough. Which one do you agree with and why?

Great thread Sister ... thanks for starting it.

Who wants to be without a gun, when everyone else has one?! Introduce me to that person please ... :lol:

Gun sales went up 41% the day after this massacre, the news has reported.

:heart:

Destee
 

legit-writer

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Dec 12, 2002
1,532
1,182
Great thread Sister ... thanks for starting it.

Who wants to be without a gun, when everyone else has one?! Introduce me to that person please ... :lol:

Gun sales went up 41% the day after this massacre, the news has reported.

:heart:

Destee
my point exactly. this is more controversial than we have been thinking it to be.
 

Consciousness Raising Online!

Latest profile posts

It's okay to admire otherz, but first, love self. ELEVATE your self-image by having a healthy love & respect for yourself. ✍
1619+400=2019 Jamestown Virginia...end of slavery. (Yes modern miseducation and injustices count as slavery) But no proper reparations will be given since the amount of contributions beyond humanity transcends generations. Our people have history that is equal to trillions of dollars including Melanin research and its supernatural power.
I want my people to be aware of this dilemma regarding the upcoming election... I know politics. Yes Trump is admitting the truth about Black People building this so called country corporation (The United States). But you must understand that what they're planning on doing is to divide and conquer. This is all just for him to get re-elected. He's going to promise reparations and reneg at the last minute.
Ifypedro334 wrote on Jasica Adam's profile.
The best gift to give a baby boy is ??
Lon
Trying to find my way around on this forum. It's not User Friendly
Top