First, posters will use LABELS to try to trap me into some groups' ideals --- this is a useless waste of time on their part. I do not fall into one category and am able to think for myself without identifying with any LABEL or their agenda. Any political, religious or (Fill in the blank) LABEL posters attempt to identify me with will only serve to illustrate their own inability to think for themselves and highlight their lack of personal intelligence and ability to support their opinion as an individual.



After - reading, listening and learning from both sides of the "Gun" debate the past few months, I have come to some personal conclusions. This is a rather quickly created post, but I think it serves as a basic primer in terms of my opinions. I just reached a point where I decided to put my "2 cents" in and offer it up to others for debate, reaction and maybe open up some peoples LABEL blinded stances to a more reasonable and less "Cookie-Cutter" response.


TODAY:

Problem --- At present time - the ONLY thing that will hold up the intelligent change of our nation's gun policies is the NRA funded representatives in our government.

Minimal Progress --- I would predict that only universal background checks make it through at this time in history. Maybe, some regulation on AW, but nothing with teeth'.

Near Future Progress --- within the next 2 presidential cycles, politicians will shed the money and ties from the NRA and free themselves up to create sensible gun policy.




***It is most important to read the following in the time-frame I have stated --- 100 YEARS FROM NOW.***


FUTURE:

IMO --- I think that America will look back on present day, maybe 100 years from now, and be astounded by the ignorance and violence that was acceptable --- comparable to how we judge the Wild West' times now.

In the future - Only the Military, Police and like groups will be armed --- with gun policy in place, enforced and enacted, which will address and solve the publics' inability to safely and responsibly own firearms by completely disarming the nation. The disarming will begin with the criminal element of the nation and once that is under control will then expand to the rest of the public.

There will come a time that the 2nd Amendment is going to be abolished, like so many other antiquated ideals from the past. The Constitution is, and was intended to be, a living part of our country --- to be amended accordingly as people and the world change. The missed point of the Constitution is that it was created primarily to protect ourselves from common human character flaws. The Constitution allows for proper discourse among a free nation of people --- it was never intended to be written in stone.

There will come a time when the public willingly gives their firearms to the government, BEFORE it ever has to be mandated or forced. The public will see the greater good and unite against the few, very few, left that will make some immature "Last Stand". Responsible gun owners will see that they can protect themselves with alternative non-lethal instruments more effectively and realize that they will continue to have access to their firearms at any time for sport or hunting. The embarrassing realization of the foolishness of gun policy from decades past will come to light as the landscape of technology and self/home protection is replaced with much more reliable, safe and effective instruments --- most importantly, non-lethal instruments.

The "Gun" will go the way of the polluting, inefficient and antiquated combustible engine --- they will be useless relics of the past. Yes, our Police, Military and the like will have the modern day improved "Gun". They will utilize it to protect our society and country, but as history will have taught us, the general public never was capable of safely or responsibly owning full-time/carrying on their person, any firearms (Past or Present).



As for hunting and sport shooting? Creating government safe-houses that store all sport and hunting firearms. Any owner will check out their weapons for a predetermined amount of time and return them when done. Each county, town or jurisdiction will have an appropriate number of the government safe-houses to accommodate each region and make it convenient for the owners in terms of proximity.

As for self and home protection? There are, and will be many more, non-lethal alternatives to firearms. This will result in better self and home defense abilities while dramatically decreasing the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms of today. All categories of accidental death would almost disappear --- children playing with adults firearms/common accidental shootings and many other idiotic ways we have historically killed each other with firearms.

As for the government coming to get us? Never going to happen, due to the basic knowledge of "Right from Wrong" that our nations' police and military are endowed with --- add that this is now, and will be even more so, a time of immediate communication through technology, America is not some 3rd World' country that is led by tyrants and dictatorships. The public is aware in our nation and the forces that will be armed will be able to distinguish, and react appropriately, to any tyrannical movement. In America, the military and police are a part of the public and will not turn their weapons on their own cities, towns and families.

As for keeping firearms out of the country? Firearms are nothing like drugs or any other idiotic (Fill in the blank) comparison people enjoy ignorantly throwing out for discussion --- firearms are, and will be even more so, easily detectable. The laws and enforcement will reduce the number of illegally imported firearms to basically a small, easily controlled, trickle. Our shores and skies will be secure in terms of firearm control. Many other countries are capable of this control, so to say the USA could not do it would just be childish.

As for the sale/collection of firearms? ALL sales and purchases will be done exclusively by the Government on an individual basis. Future technology having a "Finger-Print" of everyone from birth to death will allow proper psychological, criminal etc...checks, as well as accountability of any owner in regards to their purchased firearms. Each region or state will have an appropriate number of government operated sites to purchase firearms. There will be NO sales between owners - NO gun-shows...basically it will be illegal to sell/purchase any firearms, unless it is through the government. Any firearms owned by someone who dies will be kept by the government and the families given a choice between - a family member can become the NEW owner, after appropriate background checks, and purchase the firearm or be given the firearm's worth in the form of a check (Both at prorated amounts). Collecting firearms will be against the law, period. ALL firearms already in collections can be turned in for money or registered, after proper background checks, by the owner to also be stored at the previously mentioned safe-houses. A vast, all encompassing, collection of firearms will be on display in museums for anyone to come look at, read about and "enjoy" being in the presence of, if they desire.



Any arguments that will follow:

"Taking guns out of society will cause economic harm to the country"
"The 2nd Amendment should never be abolished"
"The government will come get us and make us all into slaves"
"We are a country founded and created by the gun"
"How will we protect ourselves?"

...and so on...

Have been decently addressed and will only become moot in the future.


The bottom-line, IMO, is that present day gun policy in the United States of America is going to be addressed and intelligently changed as our country becomes more enlightened to the fact that there is no use, need or place for firearms among the general public. We, as a society, have proven in abundance that we are not capable of safely or responsibly - owning full-time or carrying on our person any firearms.


I am, and will always be, a creature willing to listen and learn from others --- I am not for or against any particular LABEL and what they represent. I have attempted to give my objective opinion under the very little utilized, and completely dismissed by our government, framework of COMMON SENSE.

A Minor Threat

tl;dr



Get a blog. Blogger.com is free.

So basically what youre saying is you think the future will be a minority report 1984 style all controlling government where the people are at its mercy. Sounds like a great thing to look forward too.

Your point about the NRA couldnt be more wrong. The NRA does nothing more than present positions its members represent. If people dont like something theyre doing and enough let them know they change positions. If they were as powerless as you claim and only good for funding people wouldnt want their endorsement or be scared of them.

If your predictions are true people will look back and say "Man that must of been nice to have some sorts of freedom" and then the government will take them to a reeducation camp for thinking that

The 2nd Amendment will be abolished the day this country is no longer America. There will be a split into two countries or a massive civil war before that day comes. The first amendment and the rest of them will also be abolished if that is successfully abolished, after all its a living breathing document right

So did Stalin

And another thing nice revisionist history about people cant be trusted. The one thing history has taught us time and time again to this day is no government can be trusted with absolute power which is what you want.

That 3rd world stuff is complete bs too. Germany, Russia, Italy all countries in the last 100 years where this happened and guess how that turned out. None of them were 3rd world countries. Hell the US had a civil war about 150 years ago for the government imposing its will on the people. That was a just cause but it still proves the point that governments have no problems using force to keep power.

Honestly im not wasting any more time responding to this and that garbage about how well be gun free because we can detect and catch them. Good things gangs dont have weapons since were so good at getting rid of illegal guns, give me a break

Hitler Had The Same Idea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So did Stalin


This comparison is fundamentally flawed. The time in history of Hitler, Stalin and their ilk is so completely different than present day that they really are not comparable.

Presently - modern society, in regards to the USA, has the technology that affords the public, police and military immediate communication on anything from some celebrity falling down a flight of stairs to some of the most attention demanding securities of a nation. Even if there were some "behind the scenes" tyrannical shit happening, someone would get the information to the masses --- people, even those closest to, or involved in, the "behind the scenes" would never let this country go down a path to dictatorship. The masses are AWARE and INFORMED of the state of affairs of the USA and, again, the powers that are needed to carry out any "take-over" of the general public (Military, Police etc...) are not ignorant blind followers.

The times of past, Hitler etc..., were of masses with little to no knowledge of the most basic workings of the government. The communication networks were non-existent and people were unaware of the global happenings, often not even what was happening in the town down the road. People of those times were quite dependent on trusting the "Word" of the government and having no real perspective to properly measure what was asked of them by the powers that existed.

In modern times, in 1st World countries, it would be impossible to repeat the processes that led to leaders having that kind of control mentally and physically over their populations. Can it happen in todays societies? Yes, but only in established dictatorships and 3rd World countries that are comparable to 1st World countries of that era.

A Minor Threat

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Presently - modern society, in regards to the USA,
> has the technology that affords the public, police
> and military immediate communication on anything
> from some celebrity falling down a flight of
> stairs to some of the most attention demanding
> securities of a nation. Even if there were some
> "behind the scenes" tyrannical shit happening,
> someone would get the information to the masses
> --- people, even those closest to, or involved in,
> the "behind the scenes" would never let this
> country go down a path to dictatorship. The masses
> are AWARE and INFORMED of the state of affairs of
> the USA and, again, the powers that are needed to
> carry out any "take-over" of the general public
> (Military, Police etc...) are not ignorant blind
> followers.

You just disarmed the masses them knowing doesnt change a thing. What are they going to do protest it? Oh right you couldnt even do that since there wouldnt be a first amendment either.

> The times of past, Hitler etc..., were of masses
> with little to no knowledge of the most basic
> workings of the government. The communication
> networks were non-existent and people were unaware
> of the global happenings, often not even what was
> happening in the town down the road. People of
> those times were quite dependent on trusting the
> "Word" of the government and having no real
> perspective to properly measure what was asked of
> them by the powers that existed.

Again you disarmed them theres no reason to care that they know

> In modern times, in 1st World countries, it would
> be impossible to repeat the processes that led to
> leaders having that kind of control mentally and
> physically over their populations. Can it happen
> in todays societies? Yes, but only in established
> dictatorships and 3rd World countries that are
> comparable to 1st World countries of that era.

Actually its not impossible and it has happened in first world countries and theres still people alive from when it happened.

The reason why it cant happen here right now is an armed public. You disarmed them and took away any ability they have to do anything. Not only could it happened in a gunless society its actually assured that at some point in time it will happen and youll have no recourse other than saying I guess it was a bad idea afterall.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And another thing nice revisionist history about
> people cant be trusted. The one thing history has
> taught us time and time again to this day is no
> government can be trusted with absolute power
> which is what you want.

No, only in regards to firearms would I like to see complete government control.

The balance lies within the awareness, communication and ability of our military, police and their kind (Armed forces) to keep itself along with government in check. The way this nation was created allows for government and military (Armed forces) to never have the power to overthrow one and other. I admit, the government is a fucking disaster on many levels, but the core is solidly at constant odds with each other. This creates a government, military (Armed forces) and general public all dependent on some kind of consensus. Since, consensus is never really reached, apathy never enters any one group to the point of being prone to irrelevance, while enough action is taken by each group to never allow "absolute power" by any of the others.

As for using the past hundred years as a template for the future, well that is just ridiculous. The changes in the world and how it operates are moving at warp speed in comparison. I agree that history should always be learned from and heeded to an extent, and the old adage that it always repeats itself, but a modern day dictatorship or complete government control of America is based in fiction.

The 2nd Amendment will be abolished, or properly interpreted as the wording of "Militia" meaning our Military, Police etc --- While society becomes more enlightened and realizes that alternative instruments more effectively and safely protect them and there homes verse the firearms of the past, there will be a majority (Already growing today) that WANT firearms out of the general publics' possession.

The NRA is nothing but a middle-man for the sales of firearms and related products. That is their only purpose and they are funded by the manufacturers of the firearms and take all cues from them --- they then pay for representation in the government. Once that cycle is broken, the NRA will hold no power in terms of political decisions within our government. I would go further to predict another parallel association, but ideologically in opposition to the NRA, to be born out of frustration from responsible gun owners that will advocate what reasonable people actually believe. At any time you hear the NRA speak on a national stage, just ask yourself before any words are spoken "Do the speaking points sell more firearms and related items?" --- you will be amazed how the answer is always yes. No matter how tragic or violent the events were that led to the NRA speaking, they will structure their arguments to SELL more for the manufacturers.

Speaking of "Freedoms", and the lessening of them, really does not support your point of view. In America, the freedoms are great, but many times now, and throughout history, have led to violence in huge proportions. Some freedoms should be taken away --- full-time firearm possession is one of them. We have proven, beyond a doubt, that the general public can not safely and responsibly handle full-time possession of firearms, time to start the process of taking away that freedom.

The "Gangs and criminals will have all the guns" is such a load of shit. As I said before, the criminal elements would be the first to be disarmed, while our seas and skies were secured from illegal importation of firearms. Put these two actions together and the supply will be gone while the already present firearms are collected through force --- as well as sensible programs. Will gangs' and crime go away, no, but gangs and criminals will possess little to no firearms. Government control of sales and purchases will make anyone supplying criminals or gangs ending up being just as fucked as the people they supply. AFTER these things have been accomplished will the general public be disarmed. A few years of firearm related homicides and accidental deaths that are NOT the results of gang activity, but the huge majority of death directly resulting from legal public ownership will finally prompt the general public to start willingly turning over their firearms for the government to house. After this unforced or mandated willingness by the general public, policy and laws will be demanded, by the same majority, for the government to take over all aspects of firearms in the nation.

A Minor Threat

A MAJOR THREAT

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You just disarmed the masses them knowing doesnt
> change a thing. What are they going to do protest
> it? Oh right you couldnt even do that since there
> wouldnt be a first amendment either.


The 1st amendment would still exist --- never have I mentioned anything to suggest otherwise.


> Again you disarmed them theres no reason to care
> that they know

I see that you can ONLY solve problems, or create a movement with firearms. That is a lack of intelligence coupled with the cowardice of extreme measure. Throughout history the masses have had the ability to peacefully change the world --- I think that the people of America are intelligent enough to cause change without firearms. In fact, it has been the most effective way to influence our government since it was established. Add up the movements by the general public that have involved firearms and the ones that did not --- now after you use a calculator to add up the successful peaceful movements and realize that only one (Revolutionary War) movement that used firearms were ever successful, reevaluate your personal dependancy on firearms as a means of national change.



> The reason why it cant happen here right now is an
> armed public. You disarmed them and took away any
> ability they have to do anything. Not only could
> it happened in a gunless society its actually
> assured that at some point in time it will happen
> and youll have no recourse other than saying I
> guess it was a bad idea afterall.

Read above and study history --- the idea that an unarmed society is at the mercy of the government is a created fiction. The "public" you speak of EXCLUDES those who are armed, our military, police and so on...

I make the distinction of general public to exclude the Military, police etc.. BUT INCLUDE the same Military, Police etc as part of our overall "public". I should have somehow better worded this distinction. The point is that a HUGE amount of our "public" will be armed, they ARE the Military, National Guard, Police etc...

It is pure fantasy that our government would ever be capable of the actions needed to do whatever the fuck you idiots think they will try to impose on the masses.

A Minor Threat



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2013 05:57AM by postpoppunk.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, posters will use LABELS to try to trap me
> into some groups' ideals --- this is a useless
> waste of time on their part. I do not fall into
> one category and am able to think for myself
> without identifying with any LABEL or their
> agenda. Any political, religious or (Fill in the
> blank) LABEL posters attempt to identify me with
> will only serve to illustrate their own inability
> to think for themselves and highlight their lack
> of personal intelligence and ability to support
> their opinion as an individual.
>
>
>
> After - reading, listening and learning from both
> sides of the "Gun" debate the past few months, I
> have come to some personal conclusions. This is a
> rather quickly created post, but I think it serves
> as a basic primer in terms of my opinions. I just
> reached a point where I decided to put my "2
> cents" in and offer it up to others for debate,
> reaction and maybe open up some peoples LABEL
> blinded stances to a more reasonable and less
> "Cookie-Cutter" response.
>
>
> TODAY:
>
> Problem --- At present time - the ONLY thing that
> will hold up the intelligent change of our
> nation's gun policies is the NRA funded
> representatives in our government.
>
> Minimal Progress --- I would predict that only
> universal background checks make it through at
> this time in history. Maybe, some regulation on
> AW, but nothing with teeth'.
>
> Near Future Progress --- within the next 2
> presidential cycles, politicians will shed the
> money and ties from the NRA and free themselves up
> to create sensible gun policy.
>
>
>
>
> ***It is most important to read the following in
> the time-frame I have stated --- 100 YEARS FROM
> NOW.***
>
>
> FUTURE:
>
> IMO --- I think that America will look back on
> present day, maybe 100 years from now, and be
> astounded by the ignorance and violence that was
> acceptable --- comparable to how we judge the Wild
> West' times now.
>
> In the future - Only the Military, Police and like
> groups will be armed --- with gun policy in place,
> enforced and enacted, which will address and solve
> the publics' inability to safely and responsibly
> own firearms by completely disarming the nation.
> The disarming will begin with the criminal element
> of the nation and once that is under control will
> then expand to the rest of the public.
>
> There will come a time that the 2nd Amendment is
> going to be abolished, like so many other
> antiquated ideals from the past. The Constitution
> is, and was intended to be, a living part of our
> country --- to be amended accordingly as people
> and the world change. The missed point of the
> Constitution is that it was created primarily to
> protect ourselves from common human character
> flaws. The Constitution allows for proper
> discourse among a free nation of people --- it was
> never intended to be written in stone.
>
> There will come a time when the public willingly
> gives their firearms to the government, BEFORE it
> ever has to be mandated or forced. The public will
> see the greater good and unite against the few,
> very few, left that will make some immature "Last
> Stand". Responsible gun owners will see that they
> can protect themselves with alternative non-lethal
> instruments more effectively and realize that they
> will continue to have access to their firearms at
> any time for sport or hunting. The embarrassing
> realization of the foolishness of gun policy from
> decades past will come to light as the landscape
> of technology and self/home protection is replaced
> with much more reliable, safe and effective
> instruments --- most importantly, non-lethal
> instruments.
>
> The "Gun" will go the way of the polluting,
> inefficient and antiquated combustible engine ---
> they will be useless relics of the past. Yes, our
> Police, Military and the like will have the modern
> day improved "Gun". They will utilize it to
> protect our society and country, but as history
> will have taught us, the general public never was
> capable of safely or responsibly owning
> full-time/carrying on their person, any firearms
> (Past or Present).
>
>
>
> As for hunting and sport shooting? Creating
> government safe-houses that store all sport and
> hunting firearms. Any owner will check out their
> weapons for a predetermined amount of time and
> return them when done. Each county, town or
> jurisdiction will have an appropriate number of
> the government safe-houses to accommodate each
> region and make it convenient for the owners in
> terms of proximity.
>
> As for self and home protection? There are, and
> will be many more, non-lethal alternatives to
> firearms. This will result in better self and home
> defense abilities while dramatically decreasing
> the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms
> of today. All categories of accidental death would
> almost disappear --- children playing with adults
> firearms/common accidental shootings and many
> other idiotic ways we have historically killed
> each other with firearms.
>
> As for the government coming to get us? Never
> going to happen, due to the basic knowledge of
> "Right from Wrong" that our nations' police and
> military are endowed with --- add that this is
> now, and will be even more so, a time of immediate
> communication through technology, America is not
> some 3rd World' country that is led by tyrants and
> dictatorships. The public is aware in our nation
> and the forces that will be armed will be able to
> distinguish, and react appropriately, to any
> tyrannical movement. In America, the military and
> police are a part of the public and will not turn
> their weapons on their own cities, towns and
> families.
>
> As for keeping firearms out of the country?
> Firearms are nothing like drugs or any other
> idiotic (Fill in the blank) comparison people
> enjoy ignorantly throwing out for discussion ---
> firearms are, and will be even more so, easily
> detectable. The laws and enforcement will reduce
> the number of illegally imported firearms to
> basically a small, easily controlled, trickle. Our
> shores and skies will be secure in terms of
> firearm control. Many other countries are capable
> of this control, so to say the USA could not do it
> would just be childish.
>
> As for the sale/collection of firearms? ALL sales
> and purchases will be done exclusively by the
> Government on an individual basis. Future
> technology having a "Finger-Print" of everyone
> from birth to death will allow proper
> psychological, criminal etc...checks, as well as
> accountability of any owner in regards to their
> purchased firearms. Each region or state will have
> an appropriate number of government operated sites
> to purchase firearms. There will be NO sales
> between owners - NO gun-shows...basically it will
> be illegal to sell/purchase any firearms, unless
> it is through the government. Any firearms owned
> by someone who dies will be kept by the government
> and the families given a choice between - a family
> member can become the NEW owner, after appropriate
> background checks, and purchase the firearm or be
> given the firearm's worth in the form of a check
> (Both at prorated amounts). Collecting firearms
> will be against the law, period. ALL firearms
> already in collections can be turned in for money
> or registered, after proper background checks, by
> the owner to also be stored at the previously
> mentioned safe-houses. A vast, all encompassing,
> collection of firearms will be on display in
> museums for anyone to come look at, read about and
> "enjoy" being in the presence of, if they desire.
>
>
>
> Any arguments that will follow:
>
> "Taking guns out of society will cause economic
> harm to the country"
> "The 2nd Amendment should never be abolished"
> "The government will come get us and make us all
> into slaves"
> "We are a country founded and created by the gun"
> "How will we protect ourselves?"
>
> ...and so on...
>
> Have been decently addressed and will only become
> moot in the future.
>
>
> The bottom-line, IMO, is that present day gun
> policy in the United States of America is going to
> be addressed and intelligently changed as our
> country becomes more enlightened to the fact that
> there is no use, need or place for firearms among
> the general public. We, as a society, have proven
> in abundance that we are not capable of safely or
> responsibly - owning full-time or carrying on our
> person any firearms.
>
>
> I am, and will always be, a creature willing to
> listen and learn from others --- I am not for or
> against any particular LABEL and what they
> represent. I have attempted to give my objective
> opinion under the very little utilized, and
> completely dismissed by our government, framework
> of COMMON SENSE.

Bullshit.

ISBS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----


> Bullshit.

Well stated --- to the point, extremely thought out and straight forward.

Thanks for your contribution.

A Minor Threat

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No, only in regards to firearms would I like to
> see complete government control.

Thats the same thing. If the government has complete control youve disarmed the public and given the government absolute power with no way to rectify the situation if need be.

> The 2nd Amendment will be abolished, or properly
> interpreted as the wording of "Militia" meaning
> our Military, Police etc --- While society becomes
> more enlightened and realizes that alternative
> instruments more effectively and safely protect
> them and there homes verse the firearms of the
> past, there will be a majority (Already growing
> today) that WANT firearms out of the general
> publics' possession.

Clearly you need enlish lessons, militia is separated by commas from the right of the people. State constitutions at the time also have the right of the people including the Virginia written by founding fathers with no mention of militia. The interpretation is correct its just not what you want it to be.

> The NRA is nothing but a middle-man for the sales
> of firearms and related products. That is their
> only purpose and they are funded by the
> manufacturers of the firearms and take all cues
> from them --- they then pay for representation in
> the government. Once that cycle is broken, the NRA
> will hold no power in terms of political decisions
> within our government. I would go further to
> predict another parallel association, but
> ideologically in opposition to the NRA, to be born
> out of frustration from responsible gun owners
> that will advocate what reasonable people actually
> believe. At any time you hear the NRA speak on a
> national stage, just ask yourself before any words
> are spoken "Do the speaking points sell more
> firearms and related items?" --- you will be
> amazed how the answer is always yes. No matter how
> tragic or violent the events were that led to the
> NRA speaking, they will structure their arguments
> to SELL more for the manufacturers.

BS. If the NRA didnt represent its members it would have no power and their endorsement would mean nothing.

> Speaking of "Freedoms", and the lessening of them,
> really does not support your point of view. In
> America, the freedoms are great, but many times
> now, and throughout history, have led to violence
> in huge proportions. Some freedoms should be taken
> away --- full-time firearm possession is one of
> them. We have proven, beyond a doubt, that the
> general public can not safely and responsibly
> handle full-time possession of firearms, time to
> start the process of taking away that freedom.

And now we get to your basic belief system. You dont believe in freedom and want a nanny state where the government runs everyones life. I would rather live free in what you call a violent nation than live in the protected North Korea you dream of.

> The "Gangs and criminals will have all the guns"
> is such a load of shit. As I said before, the
> criminal elements would be the first to be
> disarmed, while our seas and skies were secured
> from illegal importation of firearms. Put these
> two actions together and the supply will be gone
> while the already present firearms are collected
> through force --- as well as sensible programs.
> Will gangs' and crime go away, no, but gangs and
> criminals will possess little to no firearms.
> Government control of sales and purchases will
> make anyone supplying criminals or gangs ending up
> being just as fucked as the people they supply.
> AFTER these things have been accomplished will the
> general public be disarmed. A few years of firearm
> related homicides and accidental deaths that are
> NOT the results of gang activity, but the huge
> majority of death directly resulting from legal
> public ownership will finally prompt the general
> public to start willingly turning over their
> firearms for the government to house. After this
> unforced or mandated willingness by the general
> public, policy and laws will be demanded, by the
> same majority, for the government to take over all
> aspects of firearms in the nation.

The only thing thats a load of shit is what you just wrote. You obviously have no understanding of crime or why it happens. Theres gun crime in England and guns are completely banned, and their violent crime rate is 4 times higher. But dont let facts get in the way

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The 1st amendment would still exist --- never have
> I mentioned anything to suggest otherwise.

No it wouldnt, youve made it perfectly clear that constitutional amendments are disposable. The government would be fed up of people exposing a gun round up and get rid of that too, or for another reason. But it doesnt matter no one could do anything about it.


> I see that you can ONLY solve problems, or create
> a movement with firearms. That is a lack of
> intelligence coupled with the cowardice of extreme
> measure. Throughout history the masses have had
> the ability to peacefully change the world --- I
> think that the people of America are intelligent
> enough to cause change without firearms. In fact,
> it has been the most effective way to influence
> our government since it was established. Add up
> the movements by the general public that have
> involved firearms and the ones that did not ---
> now after you use a calculator to add up the
> successful peaceful movements and realize that
> only one (Revolutionary War) movement that used
> firearms were ever successful, reevaluate your
> personal dependancy on firearms as a means of
> national change.

Nothing youve written has expressed the slightest ounce of intelligence or critical thinking. Our government is contained by the simple fact of an armed public, once the ability to start fresh in the case of tyranny is gone they have no reason to listen. You are at their mercy.


> Read above and study history --- the idea that an
> unarmed society is at the mercy of the government
> is a created fiction. The "public" you speak of
> EXCLUDES those who are armed, our military, police
> and so on...

I have read history which is why I know everything you are saying is complete BS. Every communist society in history unarmed public, every dictatorship unarmed public, every tyrannical government either tried or was successful at disarming their public. You should go read about WWII. You truely live in an alternate reality.

> I make the distinction of general public to
> exclude the Military, police etc.. BUT INCLUDE the
> same Military, Police etc as part of our overall
> "public". I should have somehow better worded this
> distinction. The point is that a HUGE amount of
> our "public" will be armed, they ARE the Military,
> National Guard, Police etc...

No thats not a huge amount of the public first of all.

Second the military isnt armed at home.

3rd theyre the exact people the bill of rights is designed to protect against.

You need to take 6th grade civics again.

> It is pure fantasy that our government would ever
> be capable of the actions needed to do whatever
> the fuck you idiots think they will try to impose
> on the masses.

The germans said the same thing. So did the chinese, the russians, the cubans, the north koreans, the american colonists...........

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The 1st amendment would still exist --- never
> have
> > I mentioned anything to suggest otherwise.
>
> No it wouldnt, youve made it perfectly clear that
> constitutional amendments are disposable. The
> government would be fed up of people exposing a
> gun round up and get rid of that too, or for
> another reason. But it doesnt matter no one could
> do anything about it.
>
>
> > I see that you can ONLY solve problems, or
> create
> > a movement with firearms. That is a lack of
> > intelligence coupled with the cowardice of
> extreme
> > measure. Throughout history the masses have had
> > the ability to peacefully change the world ---
> I
> > think that the people of America are
> intelligent
> > enough to cause change without firearms. In
> fact,
> > it has been the most effective way to influence
> > our government since it was established. Add up
> > the movements by the general public that have
> > involved firearms and the ones that did not ---
> > now after you use a calculator to add up the
> > successful peaceful movements and realize that
> > only one (Revolutionary War) movement that used
> > firearms were ever successful, reevaluate your
> > personal dependancy on firearms as a means of
> > national change.
>
> Nothing youve written has expressed the slightest
> ounce of intelligence or critical thinking. Our
> government is contained by the simple fact of an
> armed public, once the ability to start fresh in
> the case of tyranny is gone they have no reason to
> listen. You are at their mercy.
>
>
> > Read above and study history --- the idea that
> an
> > unarmed society is at the mercy of the
> government
> > is a created fiction. The "public" you speak of
> > EXCLUDES those who are armed, our military,
> police
> > and so on...
>
> I have read history which is why I know everything
> you are saying is complete BS. Every communist
> society in history unarmed public, every
> dictatorship unarmed public, every tyrannical
> government either tried or was successful at
> disarming their public. You should go read about
> WWII. You truely live in an alternate reality.
>
> > I make the distinction of general public to
> > exclude the Military, police etc.. BUT INCLUDE
> the
> > same Military, Police etc as part of our
> overall
> > "public". I should have somehow better worded
> this
> > distinction. The point is that a HUGE amount of
> > our "public" will be armed, they ARE the
> Military,
> > National Guard, Police etc...
>
> No thats not a huge amount of the public first of
> all.
>
> Second the military isnt armed at home.
>
> 3rd theyre the exact people the bill of rights is
> designed to protect against.
>
> You need to take 6th grade civics again.
>
> > It is pure fantasy that our government would
> ever
> > be capable of the actions needed to do whatever
> > the fuck you idiots think they will try to
> impose
> > on the masses.
>
> The germans said the same thing. So did the
> chinese, the russians, the cubans, the north
> koreans, the american colonists...........

"I love my guns"

First---go fuck your self. Thats my opinion on what you should do.

Second--my opinion does not matter to you just like your opinion does not matter to me.

Third--you will be dead way before a 100 years.

Fourth--America may not even be here a county in a 100 years.

last point...

nobody cares what your views are....

Have a nice day.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tl;dr
>
>
>
> Get a blog. Blogger.com is free.


Right again eesh. You are on a roll my man. Keep up the good work.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

postpoppunk,

one question.

For whom did you cast your vote this past November?

.
Attachments:

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In the future - Only the Military, Police and like
> groups will be armed --- with gun policy in place,
> enforced and enacted, which will address and solve
> the publics' inability to safely and responsibly
> own firearms by completely disarming the nation.
> The disarming will begin with the criminal element
> of the nation and once that is under control will
> then expand to the rest of the public.

Can you explain how our future benevolent, non-tyrannical government is going to accomplish this? Bear in mind that almost all criminals, and a good majority of law-abiding citizens, will be somewhat resistant to having their property taken from them.
In order for any sort of disarmament to take place, the 4th Amendment would have to be thrown out along with the 2nd. Armed Police or Military personnel would have to go house to house, searching every inch of every residence, probably holding the residents at gunpoint to insure that they don't resist this unconstitutional search and seizure.

And then of course, assuming this disarmament was 100% successful, we could return the the peaceful, violence-free Utopia that existed before guns were invented, right?

---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.

FoolSmacker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you explain how our future benevolent,
> non-tyrannical government is going to accomplish
> this? Bear in mind that almost all criminals, and
> a good majority of law-abiding citizens, will be
> somewhat resistant to having their property taken
> from them.


No ones' property is being taken --- it is to be housed by the government and can be used by the owners for any sport/hunting etc... Criminal elements would be the first to disarm. There will be alternative self-defense instruments available to the public - non-leathal and more effective than current day firearms.


> In order for any sort of disarmament to take
> place, the 4th Amendment would have to be thrown
> out along with the 2nd. Armed Police or Military
> personnel would have to go house to house,
> searching every inch of every residence, probably
> holding the residents at gunpoint to insure that
> they don't resist this unconstitutional search and
> seizure.

That is false --- nothing is being taken away, only stored in safe-houses. Access to owners is available. Also, those thousands of firearms can be sold to the government (At whatever value they hold at the time) by people who are not interested in having them any longer. With alternatives available, many people would opt for the more effective and safer choice.


> And then of course, assuming this disarmament was
> 100% successful, we could return the the peaceful,
> violence-free Utopia that existed before guns were
> invented, right?

No, there will always be violence in any society. Having firearms housed, it being criminal to have any firearms not housed and properly registered would carry heavy legal ramifications.


The number of deaths by firearms, owned by relatively responsible people would virtually disappear --- no more family members (Children especially) would hurt themselves, or die with the thousands of accidents a year. Crimes of "passion" / Accidental shooting of someone a person "believes" is threatening them and many more examples that result in death would be history. The non-lethal instruments would ensure effective self/home defense while also, when carried on your person take away the finality of a mistaken threat. People would still fuck each other up and have rage, but with no firearms (Lets just say 99% less) there would be less death.

It is a constant that people over react and kill another human being --- they can with a bat, knife or whatever, but having to use something less lethal than a firearm gives the attacked a chance to survive and defend themselves.

It just equals less immediate death and less rash decisions that result in death that could have been avoided.

A Minor Threat

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No it wouldnt, youve made it perfectly clear that
> constitutional amendments are disposable. The
> government would be fed up of people exposing a
> gun round up and get rid of that too, or for
> another reason. But it doesnt matter no one could
> do anything about it.


The 2nd Amendment is becoming quite antiquated even now. It is the only one I see that is disposable in the future. People will maintain all the same rights to defend themselves and to "bear arms", but not lethal "arms". There are alternatives now, and will be only better in the future. They will be more effective and result in less death overall --- accidental or murderous.



> Nothing youve written has expressed the slightest
> ounce of intelligence or critical thinking. Our
> government is contained by the simple fact of an
> armed public, once the ability to start fresh in
> the case of tyranny is gone they have no reason to
> listen. You are at their mercy.


Look, I do not expect anyone to jump on the "Band-Wagon" with me here, but I have presented an intelligent prognostication and I have used critical thinking to address some common arguments against major reform on US "gun" policy. The military and police are armed on a daily basis --- there is no chance of any tyrannical take-over by the government. We are not a country of unaware people, we are able to know right from wrong...I have a great deal of faith that our armed services and police forces would be the FIRST to forcibly stop any tyrannical movements - with the backing of the public.


> I have read history which is why I know everything
> you are saying is complete BS. Every communist
> society in history unarmed public, every
> dictatorship unarmed public, every tyrannical
> government either tried or was successful at
> disarming their public. You should go read about
> WWII. You truely live in an alternate reality.

It is not an alternative reality --- it is a reality that could happen in the future. I am very aware of the fear that many societies have disarmed their public only to fuck them over. Historically, each event was with a brainwashed, UNINFORMED military/police forces. We do not live in that era and have a society that is very aware of their surroundings. Again, our armed forces/police would not allow the government to even come close to that level of control. All I hear when I read about the chances of tyrannical take-over, is fear.



> No thats not a huge amount of the public first of
> all.
>
> Second the military isnt armed at home.
>
> 3rd theyre the exact people the bill of rights is
> designed to protect against.
>
> You need to take 6th grade civics again.


I can see where you are coming from, and even understand your points, but there is an alternative path for the future. The times of being protected from your own nations' military are long gone, really quite silly (In America, not worldwide). There was a time that was a possibility, it is fiction to think it can happen in America today.


> The germans said the same thing. So did the
> chinese, the russians, the cubans, the north
> koreans, the american colonists...........

I addressed this already --- save for the American Colonists, which really have no place on the above list. You have to realize the level of brainwashed bullshit and lack of any global awareness coupled with communication that barely existed were the building blocks of the tyranny. Those "building blocks" just do not exist in modern day America. I agreed earlier that the only time an armed movement worked was the American Revolution, since then only peaceful movements have had any success at changing the landscape of our country.

A Minor Threat

I am here giving my opinion --- do not expect many to jump in and stand behind me, but at the same time, I see no reason to not speak my mind.

I will try not to engage in the "Fuck You" mantra that we here on FFXU are famous for --- and I do give any counter-points respect. It is all dialogue and can only help in the long run, how civil the dialogue will be remains to be seen.



I think a difference with my approach here is that:

TODAY ---
I agree that firearms are needed to protect ourselves from criminals and each other.

I agree that America is a violent place and the most common means of self/home defense is a firearm.

I agree that the government is not ready to take any real measures to change "gun" policy.

I agree that our government is dysfunctional and has some major changing to do before anyone is willing to trust them with the best interests of the public, or even expect any common sense in their procedures.

I realize that the government structure of the dollar ruling our land and leaders will need to change. I believe that as a nation we will demand that change and there will be movements that change the face, action and accountability of our
elected leaders.



I do believe that there are alternatives to firearms in the future. Instruments that will be readily available to the general public --- non-lethal and more effective than modern day firearms.

I know that the non-lethal self/home defense instruments that replace firearms will DRAMATICALLY decrease "gun" related accidental and homicidal rates.

I know that the modern day "gun" will be developed in the future to bad-ass levels. I think that only the military/police forces should have access to these "guns" of the future.

I know that, if America made it a priority, we could secure our shores and skies and eliminate almost all illegal "gun" traffic.

I think that there can be compromise in the future which allows "gun" enthusiasts to still have there firearms available to use for their enjoyment. I think there will come a time that the MAJORITY of the general public will freely turn over their firearms, to be housed, in the best interest of society at that time.

I think the change is just being seeded now and that even the people we elect in the future will have to have a better pulse on the reality surrounding them. I believe the levels of death and violence will reach a national breaking point (Really we are there now) and alternatives will be demanded by the majority of American citizens for a reasonable change --- the "change" is, and will be, directly related to "guns".

"Guns" will become machines of the past --- less effective for the self/home defense than the alternatives. The public will use, want and embrace the change to non-lethal devices with the overwhelming evidence that supports their use and general safety over the antiquated firearms of today.

I think people who are referred to as "Gun-Nuts" will start to realize that nothing is going to be taken away, just housed and still available for sport/hunting. It will become evident to even them that alternative self/home defense instruments are available and their rights to protect themselves have will never be touched.

I know that we, as a society, have proven to not be capable of full-time possession of firearms.


There are many other issues, one being of government take-over, although fantastical, that are out there --- they hold little weight in reality, but are HUGE in some peoples minds.

It is hard to address all of the points, pro or con, living in this issue. But, IMO, having some kind of dialogue is better than just straight up arguing with blinders on and dismissing other points of view before even considering their validity.

There is more...I know "tl:dr"...I respond with --- do not fucking read it - no problem.

A Minor Threat

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No ones' property is being taken --- it is to be
> housed by the government and can be used by the
> owners for any sport/hunting etc...

Okay, now you're changing your scenario. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of gun owners, law-abiding and otherwise, will be unwilling to surrender their property to be "housed by the government" (iow, impounded). How do you suggest that these weapons are located and collected without 4th Amendment issues?



> Criminal elements would be the first to disarm.

No, they won't. They will resist your plan, violently.


> There will be alternative self-defense instruments available
> to the public - non-leathal and more effective
> than current day firearms.

Such as?


> It is a constant that people over react and kill
> another human being --- they can with a bat, knife
> or whatever, but having to use something less
> lethal than a firearm gives the attacked a chance
> to survive and defend themselves.

Let me shorten that sentence up for you, to show the other side of the issue... "a firearm gives the attacked a chance to survive and defend themselves."

---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The 2nd Amendment is becoming quite antiquated
> even now. It is the only one I see that is
> disposable in the future. People will maintain all
> the same rights to defend themselves and to "bear
> arms", but not lethal "arms". There are
> alternatives now, and will be only better in the
> future. They will be more effective and result in
> less death overall --- accidental or murderous.

Its only antiquated in your mind. Youre basically just saying what you want to happen.

In your own argument youre saying that the government is incapable of doing something wrong. Therefore you would have no need to be critical of it or need protection from searches ect. The exact argument you make for why the 2nd amendment isnt necessary is the exact same thing that would apply to the others in the bill of rights.

Theres no such thing as a non lethal weapon, theyre called less than lethal. Rubber bullets can and do kill, tasers can and do kill ect. And no none of them are better than a gun. Theyre used in cases where the criminal isnt armed, as soon as they start shooting the less than lethal gets put away and out come the guns.

Not to mention this fallacy that criminals wouldnt have guns. If it was so easy to disarm criminals they would be disarmed already.

> Look, I do not expect anyone to jump on the
> "Band-Wagon" with me here, but I have presented an
> intelligent prognostication and I have used
> critical thinking to address some common arguments
> against major reform on US "gun" policy. The
> military and police are armed on a daily basis ---
> there is no chance of any tyrannical take-over by
> the government. We are not a country of unaware
> people, we are able to know right from wrong...I
> have a great deal of faith that our armed services
> and police forces would be the FIRST to forcibly
> stop any tyrannical movements - with the backing
> of the public.

I do appreciate that youve at least approached this is a mature manner which is rare on here, but the fact is you make a lot of assumptions and are not really living in reality. Being informed doesnt matter if you have no way to stop anything.

The military wouldnt turn on the government if that day came. Some of them would and some of them wouldnt. Same goes for law enforcement. Those forces always split in a situation such as that. Some will see the constitution as the higher power in those situations while others will follow the government orders and see their loyalty there.

Police arrest citizens on a daily basis. A large percent would have no problem carrying out such orders if the opposition was labeled as an enemy of the state or a domestic terrorist ect. Some wouldnt follow and again youd see them pinned against each other like you would with the military. Which side would have a greater force you dont know until the facts of that situation present itself.


> It is not an alternative reality --- it is a
> reality that could happen in the future. I am very
> aware of the fear that many societies have
> disarmed their public only to fuck them over.
> Historically, each event was with a brainwashed,
> UNINFORMED military/police forces. We do not live
> in that era and have a society that is very aware
> of their surroundings. Again, our armed
> forces/police would not allow the government to
> even come close to that level of control. All I
> hear when I read about the chances of tyrannical
> take-over, is fear.

We very easily could come to that point sometime in the future if you disarmed the public. All governments constantly try and expand their power ours included. Think about how many laws have been passed that the supreme court has struck down. If our government was somehow morally superior to every other one in history then they never would have passed something unconstitutional.

Sometimes things that start out with good intentions morph into something completely different overtime. It may not happen overnight or as quickly as Germany and cuba ect but at some point it would. Youre also forgetting that the military ect will also have fear of itself at that point. Not every Nazi believed in the cause but none of them wanted to be killed for not following orders.

The reason why a tyrannical takeover seems so far fetched is because it would be very difficult considering the significant civilian resistance with an armed population. As soon as you take that away that difficult road just got paved.


> I can see where you are coming from, and even
> understand your points, but there is an
> alternative path for the future. The times of
> being protected from your own nations' military
> are long gone, really quite silly (In America, not
> worldwide). There was a time that was a
> possibility, it is fiction to think it can happen
> in America today.

Its not quite silly. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that by having it you dont need it. Once its gone thats when the potential for needing it comes back. The British tried to confiscate weapons shortly before the revolutionary war as well.

Im not anti military or anti cop, in fact Im very pro both. But that doesnt mean that Im willing to rip of the bill of rights because some people dont like it. A lot of people have given their lives defending that document and to do so would be the same as spitting on all of their graves.


> I addressed this already --- save for the American
> Colonists, which really have no place on the above
> list. You have to realize the level of brainwashed
> bullshit and lack of any global awareness coupled
> with communication that barely existed were the
> building blocks of the tyranny. Those "building
> blocks" just do not exist in modern day America. I
> agreed earlier that the only time an armed
> movement worked was the American Revolution, since
> then only peaceful movements have had any success
> at changing the landscape of our country.

The point that you arent understanding is it doesnt matter how informed you are if you have no ability to stop anything. If you knew the Nazis were taking over to kill Jews what were you doing to do, protest it and get shot? Again the reason why we deal with peaceful protests now is because of the 2nd amendment. When both sides have the ability to use force it creates talks. Its the same reason we dont go toe to toe with China or Russia in open warfare. Were a threat to each other. When the other side isnt a threat the side with the ability to use force just dictates the terms to the other side. When both can fight and at the very least make it a difficult fight you have talks and resolve things in a more peaceful manner.

But your still missing the entire point that this wouldnt do anything for gun violence and the supposed problem is highly overblown. Suicides arent gun violence, if you want to kill yourself youll do it. We have 300 million people and 12k murders, less than 1 tenth of 1 percent and the rate is lower than its been in a LONG time. The media just hounds on it more than they did in the past.

The vast majority of gun violence is from gangs. You solve the gang problem and gun violence will significantly drop. Criminals dont care about laws and they dont care about gun violence and bans dont work. The ban on drugs didnt work, prohibition didnt work, guns will be no different. Gun violence is the highest in places where guns are illegal. Crime also concentrates. 3 percent of addresses in a city are responsible for 90 percent of police calls. Theres certain areas that are just problem areas and there are ways police can clean those areas up using a method called hot spots policing. Basically they just run patrols through there at random time intervals a couple times an hour to create an uncertainty for the offenders of when and where the police will be.

For crimes to occur you need three things to take place its called the crime triangle. There has to be a willing offender, a suitable victim, and the lack of a capable guardian. When criminals know the public poses no threat nothing is stopping them. The police are a reactionary force. They have to wait for the crime to respond. That does you no good when a guns pointed at you or someone wants you dead.

Gun crime should be increasing if it was the guns fault. Its not its decreasing yet theres more guns in the country today than ever before. We dont have control of our southern border, with a ban guns would flow through the drug tunnels or the desert the same way the drugs get into the country. The most abundant gun in the world isnt even a us gun, its an AK 47 which is mass produced all over the world.

People that murder people dont care what law is passed. Theres no law harsher than the death penalty their is literally nothing you can do to be more of a deterrent from killing people with additional gun laws.

Finally we need to stop pretending like we can prevent everything. Murder has been around since the begging of man and will be until the end. The best you can do is give people the ability to have a fighting chance if theyre put in that situation the the citizen that stopped the mall shooting or the off duty cop that stopped another movie theater shooting.

If you really want to stop the mass shootings which in the grand scheme of things are rare, stop covering them in the media. The media hounds on them over and over making the shooter famous. This gives the mentally ill or a sick individual a way to leave their mark on society/history and be remembered on the way out. If you took away that coverage it wouldnt be a viable option for people who want to be remembered/leave their mark on their way out.