Political leadership is speaking of restricting access to firearms; the attempt is to control violence by restricted access to rights. We have many examples to show how restricting freedoms are reacted to, and what those effects will direct. Expecting violence to go away, politicians should be able to prove restrictions result in a directed connection. But reviewing both theories and conditions, show no violence is stopped by restrictions, only increased. Offering to restrict further access, provides no value except to those gaining self-promotions based on involved theory in Zone of Mediocrity. The connections here are to instill more individuals with mandates imposed only by a centralized authority, the same producing products which it needs supported.
Violence is on the increase, whether you believe it is based on mental conditions or lack of organized protections, one has to take notice. Current talk is to restrict firearms thus linking violence to firearm access in the political mindset, and forwarding this to the public. Information filters downward from those who sit and direct its course, the general public find outs only in due time what is true and what is lie. This time lag is a problem, as both truth and lie can be used to perceive a future, and which is right depends on the individuals’ characteristics. It is with this individual, offering many different views of what we see, we have many examples to work through finding an answer to any problem.
For examples to gun restrictions we start with the current Middle East, or how about South Africa, centralized restrictions of access do not show less violence as a response. Want domestic examples, what of Chicago the most firearms restricted city, or better yet any prison you can think of. It does not matter where you go, once restrictions are placed upon a conscious mind those restrictions offer little to reduce the violence. In fact once seen as a matter of competition, the level of violence increases as the empathy rates decrease. This is something we have known for a long time, but politicians need a direct connection to violence, other than their actions.
Violence has been associated with human development, theories state as stress levels increase so does the levels of violence. But there is a problem with this theory, we live in a modern world where the stress levels are suppose to be less than previous times. Violence in the past created Attila, Ghagus Khan, and Alexander, humanity has seen them and rejected this means of centralized control. With all the modern conveyances at hand, we should have less to fear and less thought into what happens. Being far removed from the actually technology working around us, we simple touch buttons and expect things to happen. It is when things go wrong we grip, but what went wrong to cause the rush to control guns?
Most of the crimes committed recently with firearms, have been with legal access to such, the expected people had the right to gain them. Restrictions as suggested can only be imposed upon those who have legal authority to ownership, illegal activity does not care who has ownership, as seen in South Africa. The illegal activity is not being covered or restricted, but even if punished will still offer the political ideology means to gain from. Calling others mentally unfit or violent has been the trait of those seeking to place others within a prisons, restricting political oppositions to less public communications. This is offered to avoid the mainstream political ideology from being hated, thus less in line with the majority rule as the majority is needed to gain political authority.
Restricting further access to individuals who oppose the centralized control only develops infrastructure, the type we already see presented with the modern prison systems. Stating this will not happen here, do you remember Guatemala Bay…wasn’t Obama supposed to shut it down? It existed because foreign individuals were restricted to protect others, yet neither this nation nor their national governments will accept them. Most have done no crime, except the one which they are never forgiven for…speaking out against the political mainstream. Connections exist between governmental authorities around the world, centralizing control produces and mandates a combined ideology.
We are seeing from one place to another, what centralized authority wants is not competition to its control over any national population. Imposed restrictions are meant to assure political ideology security, but it does not assure individual security, and when talking about limiting violence that is needed most. The right of anyone, mental ill or otherwise, to protect themselves is being taken by those who want and have no other means then violence to take it. Violence begets violence, but those offering it first are not willing to get directly involved instead they issue orders, others will carry them out. Thus protected, the political agenda can say it did not issue or agree with actions taken, just as it did at Abu Ghraid. Or did you forget the many Holocaust humanity has had over it existence, political control stated it was not directed taking actions then either.
Baby on board
Beyonce will be giving Blue Ivy a sibling in the near future.Get the details