The Great Gun Grab...not the how, but WHY?

S

Skadoosh

New member
We are all pretty aware of the latest great gun control push....and as a result, we are fairly able to recognize how government intends to go about limiting guns. We see many states through proposed legislation intent on passing stricter gun control laws, gun registration...and even gun bans.

But I was asked by a friend just yesterday this question: "Why do those people really want to take away guns?".

The obvious gun control sound bites came to mind..."public safety", "No one needs an assault rifle", "Only the military should have guns".

But as I thought it more, I really started to wonder if there might be something more behind gun control.

Despite our protests, the liberals continue to promise that they don't want to ban guns...they just want to limit a very certain few specific firearms in order to curtail "the mass slaughter of innocents".

If particular state's newly introduced legislation bills are any indication, there is a concerted effort to ban not a certain few, but an entire type of firearms that are perceived to be egregiously dangerous.

So, I began to wonder...if there really is an underlying desire to ban all guns from civilian possession and ownership, why? To what end? Is this all REALLY about public safety?

It is one thing to know "how" the opposition works...but it is quite another (and I say it is more important) to know the "why" the opposition is working so hard to do what they are doing.

Does anyone have an educated theory about the motives behind governmental gun control?
 
The reason the antis want to take yours and my guns away is very simple. The antis don't want to own guns for whatever reason - that reason doesn't really matter. But, these people can't stand other people owning something that they can't have or refuse to have. So, they figure if they don't want/need guns, then they should have the right to tell you you can't have them either.

If you haven't figured this out by now, you haven't debated long enough or extensively with gun-haters. After several rounds of debating, their true feelings creep out.

It's really as simple as that. Many of your countrymen and women have overbearing personalities and they want to control you, what you can have and what you can't have. You're making a huge mistake if you think this anti-gun push is government created. We need to wake up and see that it is the people around us, or living in our neighboring states with neurotic, pushy, and overbearing personalities that are fighting us. I wish everyone would stop trying to over analyze this.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have an educated theory about the motives behind governmental gun control?
Click to expand...

With elected officials, by and large the main drive is getting votes. In the words of Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles, "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!"
Some politicians are driven by a belief...but most only want to stay in office and will generally do what the loudest voices or special interest groups tell them to do. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. But in this case making it clear to your representatives you'd vote against them is your best defense.

When it comes to groups of people, it's about imposing their will or beliefs onto to others...not about doing what's best for everyone. The focus is on so-called assault rifles. Not violent crime and it's causes...just evil black rifles and high capacity magazines. From watching their actions over the last couple of months, I don't think they give a rat's ass about the individual who may have been stabbed to death or beaten to death with a bat and why that happened. Those victims don't seem to matter. Otherwise they'd focus on the causes of violent crime and effective methods to combat it, instead of focusing on the tool used. With them, it's not about public safety, it's about imposing a belief onto a group of people who have nothing to with the cause of the problems.
 
It is one thing to know "how" the opposition works...but it is quite another (and I say it is more important) to know the "why" the opposition is working so hard to do what they are doing.
Click to expand...


Pure and simple ignorance!

Keep in mind that the anti's are the same people that don't want any of us to own 'magazines' that hold 100 clips (I don't know what that is or would be, but I think I need one.).

These are the same people that think the .223 is a 'high-powered' rifle; compared to what? A 30/30, .308, 30/06, 500 Nitro Express?

These are the same people that think a 'Standard' capacity 30 round magazine is a 'high-capacity' magazine...

The anti's are also the same group of people that think that if you purchase ammo in bulk to save money, you must be plotting evil. These are the same people that flipped-out over James Holmes buying 6000 rounds; last I checked, the Colorado shooter didn't have a pallet jack in tow...

People fear the unknown. Ignorance is Bliss...

Just my two cents
 
Skadoosh said:
Does anyone have an educated theory about the motives behind governmental gun control?
Click to expand...
It's not about guns. It's about control. Weapons control, as far back as you care to track it, has been about keeping "the wrong people" from having weapons.
 
There are really people who not only believe they can make a better world, they are in the business of doing it. Control is the method they will use and they will pull any stunt to get it.

I saw an article where they hoped to be able to put electronic devices on cereal boxes and such that would encourage you to do things their way. "Eat healthy because it will save all of us money fixing you if you do, but your medical insurance goes up if you don't. We don't want to pay for your bad habits, etc."

It's the same as Progressive Ins. Company's new toy, that module they plug into your car called "Snapshot". It supposed to monitor how you drive so you get a lower premium. It's voluntary now, they are looking to get a good population using it voluntarily first. Then they will use numbers to justify making it mandatory if you want their Insurance, and other companies follow suite. Soon everyone has to do it.

Now you have a nanny in your car that will give you kibbles and bits if your good and smack you on your bill if you are bad. Oh, and wait till the Fed mandates them so they can add some more government regulation on top as well. All of this to "make us all safer".

Of course the States need tax revenue so why not just get your speeding tickets without all that Police officer radar fuss hey?

These ideas and toys are not the future, they are right now today, it's happening.

This is just a view of the better world they are working hard to create :mad:

[Image removed by Spats McGee]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns and those who dig - you dig (Clint Eastwood - the good, the bad and the ugly)

If you want to learn about areas where guns are or have been outlawed go to Chicago, rent "Shindlers List", read about Saddam Husien (and his nut job sons) ruling of Iraq

We are not there now but we are headed in that direction
 
You're making a huge mistake if you think this anti-gun push is government created.
Click to expand...

It may not have been government created, but they sure picked up the ball and ran with it. There are "elitists" that fear the little people. There are many people that fear what they don't understand. There are many that feel they should control what their neighbors do. The government caters to all these groups to keep their cushy jobs. No, I don't think the government created the push. They are just using it to their advantage.
 
I can't the say for other states, but in NY i really think the milloniers and billoniers got scared a couple years ago when their greed almost brought the nation fininacal status to its knees, and thats when the occupy wall street people showed up with their tents causing major concern among the rich bankers and wall street boys. They are really worried the next time they get greedy that they won't be showing up with tents in their hands , but with something a little more potant, so thats why in NY Blomberg and all his rich cronnies are running scared and want our guns, not because of some random shooting in the hood, but because they fear for their own heads (remember the french revolution)
 
No, I don't think the government created the push. They are just using it to their advantage.
Click to expand...

Sure they are - that's the nature of what politicians do. It's all to easy to blame "government". But, when you have to start taking a good hard look at who your own family and neighbors are and what they stand for - well, some people would rather just blame the government to avoid conflict.

The bottom line is: Guns are not the problem, Government is not the problem, PEOPLE are the problem.
 
Why guns?

Politicians want to take away all guns. This is just the first step. Ask any politician why they want to take away "assault rifles" or limit magazines and they will tell you its because they want to stop mass murders. Ask them if its OK with them if only 10 people are killed with a magazine limit of 10. Ask them if they will be happy if the next criminal or mentally ill person kills just 10 innocent people! Ask them what if the murderer carries two or three pistols and kills 20 or 30 kids!Will they be satisfied with their new laws? Of course not! The next step will be banning ANY gun capable of shooting multiple rounds or banning all guns because the first limit of 10 round magazines and banning of assault weapons did not work. None of these gun bans work because 1) criminals and mentally ill people don't follow laws 2) the problem is people not guns! Mass murders are committed on a regular basis in the Middle East many times without guns! Look at Obamas Chicago with very strict gun laws! Hows that working out?
 
Last edited:
Before we go off into the great liberal vs. conservative issue - here's

Joe Scarborough - a conservative.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-sc...253.html?hp=r7

Here's a self-proclaimed true conservative who babbles like Diane or Chucky. He has a national forum to share his stupidity.

My point - we want to avoid the blanket statements (as stated above by many) as we have jerks like this abounding.

---- Now are far as motives. The great divide seems to be urban and Northeastern (with urban centers added in other states - CA, IL, MN, etc).

In these regions, antigun sentiment abounds as the populations fear urban crime and have been convinced that they are incapable of defending themselves.

From what I've read in the lit - the urban and/or Eastern variables are greater predictors than lib vs. conservative. True, those areas have a greater number of liberals but the conservatives who are urban are in great part no better.

That's my take - and I don't want to start the lib. vs. conservative fight on other values.
 
Try this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-s...ortant-step-forward-on-guns-157253.html?hp=r9

It's on the front page of www.politico.com now.

I certainly don't like Scarborough - total sell-out.

He's the guy who said he doesn't see why if he wants to take his 6 year old hunting, he needs a hi-capacity clip full of cop killer bullets.

Also, here's another classic 'conservative' who is full of it:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ntrol-piece-lies-misinformation-and-newspeak/

Note how we see the monied urban class factor operating.

Got to go for a bit - let the info flow.
 
I really do think that they honestly believe things will be safer without guns. Over time, they think that guns will become less and less common, and we will not need to fear violence from those with firearms.


The problem is that they aren't thinking things all the way through. They'll end up having to do like the UK... beginning with gun crime, then knife crime, then bat crime, etc.


They're trying to make it impossible to break the law and harm others by focusing on the tools. If they remove the tools of violence from society, then there won't be violence, right?

Unfortunately, they have ignored the fact that some people are just going to be criminal and violent, and they will use anything to harm others. Take the guns away (even if you can keep them from such people), they'll use knives, table legs, a sock filled with change, whatever. Even their fists. Because that's what they are... violent. Removing the tools of violence from them does not change their nature and it does not render them safe to be out in society.

The question I ask: "Let's take a person who is in a frame of mind to go out and murder innocent children with a gun. Let's assume you can take that gun away and keep the guns away from that person. Is that person who honestly wanted to kill children now someone you want out and about... they don't have a gun, but that's the only thing that is different. Is that person safe?"

If the answer is "no," then it isn't the tool. But the people favoring bans aren't thinking that far ahead. They're thinking "well, we can maybe save a few... not all, but a few." Any lives saved are a legitimate exchange for rights they see as unnecessary.
 
Before we go off into the great liberal vs. conservative issue
Click to expand...

I don't think you can remove it from liberal vs conservative, it is somewhat a urban vs rural debate but even that don't always hold true. I think where some become confused they assume all who vote Democrat are liberals and that certainly is not true. I grew up in a household who all vote Democrat but lived like hard core conservatives but they were union so the union call was for the Dem's.

The true liberal mind seeks power and lives to push his/her way of life on others, love abortion but hates the death penalty, hates the keystone pipe line but believes in open borders with huge numbers damaging the environment they also love victims not heroes. IMO no logic to their thinking so it's good enough to simply know they do not want anyone to own guns.
 
Joe Scarborough - a conservative.
Click to expand...

This is false. Joe Scarborough works for MSNBC - he is not a conservative, although he was a Republican. He also worked for one of the biggest, liberal plaintiff's law firms in North Florida, and is usually quite critical of Conservatives and Republicans.

Sorry if this is political, but I couldn't let that statement go.
 
There's more common sense per word (and civility) in this thread of the TFL than several years worth of a Minnesota anti-gun blog that I won't mention because I don't want to give them any more publicity. (Even though I found out about it here on TFL.)

Even though there are lots that will never listen to reason let's not stop putting 'reason' out there.
 
Take the guns away (even if you can keep them from such people), they'll use knives, table legs, a sock filled with change, whatever
Click to expand...
.

When I was a kid, there was a man in our rural neighborhood that became depressed and suicidal. He tried to shoot himself. His family took away his guns and all the medications he could use to commit suicide. He went into a barn and hung himself with barbed wire.

A person determined to do evil or harm to someone else or themselves has so many options that they can't all be eliminated. At some point the individual should be held accountable for their own actions rather than placing blame on the tools they use.
 
they don't want to ban guns...they just want to limit a very certain few specific firearms in order to curtail "the mass slaughter of innocents".
Click to expand...
Not true. In the leadup to New York's new law, Governor Cuomo said that confiscation could have been an option. In fact, he told opponents of the bill to be thankful that it wasn't in there.

In January, Senator Feinstein discussed the idea of a "mandatory buyback" program. This is the same Senator who told 60 Minutes in 1995:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.
Click to expand...

When it comes to protecting the innocent or stopping mass shootings, Joe Biden made a speech last week, in which he admitted: "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down."

The takeaway? They want our guns, and they know full well their measures won't reduce violence. They've known this for awhile. Washington DC enacted a handgun ban in 1976 in an effort to reduce handgun violence. It had the opposite effect. The evidence was plain. A few antis tried to gloss the fact over or claim that other factors were at work, but in the end, the law did not achieve its purpose. Nor did Chicago's ban.

Yet they continued to push for bans on handguns, because it could work in the future. When that cause utterly ran out of political steam in the early 1990's, they deliberately and callously changed their rhetoric to address "assault weapons."

So-called assault weapons weren't being used all that often in crime. That didn't matter to the antis. They needed a legislative agenda that could pass rather than one that would be effective.

The aim is the same: disarmament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top