TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is the media intentionally creating large scale debate to trick Americans into giving Government more control?

I am proposing the idea that media in America is intentionally sparking mass debate over gun control and/or ban of firearms. My believe for there reasoning is to make people feel that the counter measure to a proposed ban on guns is to station armed guards of some type across the nation.
Ultimately leaving the end result an overpowering (government controlled) force either by #'s, Or due to lack of opposition. Whereas both outcomes are there initial intent.

Topics: gun control

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 25 2012: I agree.

    I don't like guns, so I don't own one. I don't object at all to your owning one as long as you don't bring it into my home or in any publicly owned (government) facility or property - except in national forests and parks in very specific and pre-specified places.

    Thomas Jefferson said that the second amendment is meaningless until the day when government decides to take your guns away. I agree.

    I have found that both sides of the media's agendas ignore the possiblity of a healthy compromise.

    If people want to own assault weapons that can hold a hundred rounds that can be fired in short order, and if some of these are mentally ill people who should not have guns of any kind, then find a way to bring the two sides together.

    If the National Guard were to evolve into a two-level organization, the fix can be seen there. There are those who join the NG out of patriotism. Let this remain unchanged. But establish another level for those who join, whether as a volunteer or a paid person, who can be called upon during times of disaster in their states. They can train together.

    After an adult (18 or over) joins the national guard on either level, and has been in the NG for 5 years or more, that adult may own any type of gun as long as they are responsibly & effectively stored and never sold or bequeathed. The reason for this is because schizophrenia is not diagnosed until late teens to age 27. So many of these could be found prior to their having earned the right to own a gun.

    This leaves the returning war vets with PTSD. In the last year of their service, transfer them to the national guard unit closest to the place where they will be returning. Again, PTSD can be recognized and gun-ownership rights assessed.

    This way, those who own guns for patriotic reasons of their own can own them. A screening process is in place during those critical 20's. Some can own a hunting rifle. Others can't own any - after due process that constitution requires.
    • Dec 25 2012: I like your idea about splitting the National guard, But the thought of "earning your rights" sounds more like a dictatorship than it does a democracy.
      • thumb
        Dec 26 2012: Well, you have to earn your right to drive a car, that is a lethal weapon in the hands of the untrained There are medical conditions that deny people the right to drive a car. Same with pilots of airplanes. Same with law degrees or MD degrees. Same with MANY things.

        I don't see the dictatorship part.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.