The Opposition to Obama and Gun-Control is Rapidly Growing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn't figure out why they were pushing the agenda as hard as they are, considering how obvious it is where that pathway leads.

This is DiFi's last chance to get it done. She will retire after this term, if she finishes it. This is an agenda item for her, has been for decades.

This is also an agenda item for Holder and Obama, among others, all through their "public" careers. Sandy Hook is the excuse Fast + Furious was supposed to be.

Another issue may be that Democrats sense they may not have all that much time to cement their "transformation". I guess some have to how far off center this drive is, by the reactions occurring.

Citizen disarmament is something that would help promote the end goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy. That is a dark view, but cannot be completely dismissed.
 
It is their last chance to get gun control done demographically. The demographic that grew up being fed non-stop stories of "guns are evil" by the 3 major networks is disappearing. Soon they will be outnumbered by younger people who grew up on the Internet and Call of Duty. If they don't get gun control passed now, it may be a long time until they have the opportunity to do so again.

That is why it is especially important we fight hard here. Our actions (or inaction) are going to change the course of this debate for a long time to come. The antis basically enjoyed a period from 1963-1999 where they were constantly gaining ground. 1999 was their high water mark. If we stop them here, we will grow stronger.
 
Yep, the Baby Boomer generation believed the three major networks, the ultra left print media (NYT, AP, etc) then CNN's biased garbage about guns. Today, there are more sources of news, the internet, and more activism than ever before. It doesn't hurt that many more people, first time gun buyers and women have taken up shooting for sport and self defense. AR's are mainstream, and many see guns as the great equalizer for self defense now knowing that the police can't protect you.
 
Are we burning "Boomers" now?
No, but they were the demographic for Clinton, and most gun owners I spoke with in the 1990's who just didn't see the big deal about a ban on "assault weapons" were from that age group.

Also, Jefferson Airplane. Not cool.
 
It is their last chance to get gun control done demographically.

Well, I have no real data to support this, but I see a big increase in the diversity of people I see at the local ranges. Granted I live in a urban/suburban type area, but I think the idea of gun owners as “old white guys” is changing.

Somehow the NRA needs to find spokespersons that can appeal to this changing demographic which may actually be open to the message, but may not really care for Chuck Norris or Ted Nugent.
 
Deeper motives

The demographic is one thing, but the Congress are the ones who vote. What I observed in 94 was the people with the means bought every AR in sight. Bill Clinton was gun salesman of the year. I feel dumb now, but I traded a takedown Savage 99 to get my hands on an AR. In my opinion, the "Boomer" generation had not realized their political power. Most of the crowd I ran with were conservative, and voted that way, but the other party held sway, at least until the next election. I think many people of the more liberal persuasion changed their views on being armed for defense. The instinct for preservation is the motivation. The Dalai Lama has spoken. Self defense is a reasonable thing!
 
Pennsylvania has House Bill 357.

Short Title: An Act providing that any Federal law which attempts to register, restrict or ban a firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm in this Commonwealth shall be unenforceable in this Commonwealth; and imposing penalties.

This bill is gaining a fair amount of support even has it,s own facebook page (you have to bee logged in to fb for this link to work) that is up to almost 8,000 likes. I sure hope these folks are doing more than just liking the fb page and write their Reps to get this passed.
 
Citizen disarmament is something that would help promote the end goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy. That is a dark view, but cannot be completely dismissed.

Are you drawing the connection yourself or can you cite the source of the connection? I don't doubt that many people who favor a national guaranteed income also favor disarmament. I just fail to see how one depends on the other.
 
Are you drawing the connection yourself or can you cite the source of the connection? I don't doubt that many people who favor a national guaranteed income also favor disarmament. I just fail to see how one depends on the other.
Is this serious? Name a single gun grabber who isn't extremely in favor of welfare.
 
Is this serious? Name a single gun grabber who isn't extremely in favor of welfare.

Agree, and you could ask the reverse of that question as well:

Name a single politician in favor of govt enforced redistribution of wealth (per Cloward-Piven guaranteed annual income, aka welfare state) who is NOT a gun grabber.

Both issues are about dis-empowering the individual, making individuals more dependent on the govt (income and protection), and thus achieving more complete control of citizens and therefore votes.
 
As I said, most folks that favor one also favor the other; I didn't dispute that. Can you show me where those particular professors write about disarmament and how it would help push toward the collapse of the current social welfare system?

I like ice cream, I like steak, I don't have to have ice cream to enjoy my steak.

We're among friends so I'm not trying to be snotty or pedantic... I just fail to see where one is dependent on the other.

If Cloward and Piven were trying to use the government to force their doctrine upon us your connection would make some sense. They are proposing that the people (at least the poor ones) force the government to change. Whole different thing and disarming us would not help realize their aspirations.

Even a former writer for "The Nation" felt the answer (post VA tech shootings) was to arm more people. Not all who are in favor of social welfare are gun grabbers. I think it's best if we focus on the issue at hand, doing otherwise does not add strength to our argument.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/americas/43432/lessons-be-learned-virginia-tech-shooting
 
Last edited:
We have a society that has been impacted by social media like never before. In the past your family was the strongest impact on the average persons outlook on life. I do not believe this is the case anymore. Media of all kinds directly connects to the youth and unfortunately you get gangs of inexperienced young adults and even somewhat older adults who collaborate to form their own reality.

We live in a society were fads are becoming the normal because of this overall media effect and the influences of peer groups with little age or wisdom. How many times do you see young people doing blatantly stupid stuff just for attention and their friends encourage it.

Regardless of where anyone sits on the political spectrum I doubt there are few who would disagree that this nation has become hyper polarized. Were it all ends or what the new normal will be in the end is a big question. I hope the youth will find a proper place for guns as our founders wished... but if you've seen youtube, its scary to see what passes for normal or good.
 
Last edited:
Instapundit had a poll discussing support for an assault weapon ban - if you broke it down by age it was shocking to see how closely age correlated to support for than ban. The biggest support was the oldest demographic (65+) and the 18-25 crowd was most strongly opposed to it.

The tail end of the boomers were essentially evenly split. That tracks pretty well with my own personal observations.
 
Guys, welfare and wealth distribution isn't the topic here, and it's not really germane to any part of the forum. Let's stick to the matter at hand.
 
re: Cloward Piven

George Soros on the Coming Class War"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/george-soros-on-the-coming-u-s-class-war.html January 23, 2012:

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he [Soros] says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
 
Are you drawing the connection yourself or can you cite the source of the connection?

I thought that up by myself. I was thinking about potential impediments to a national, central government restructuring the country into a command-and-control situation like marxist or fascist states we have seen.

I think the impediments to making this work run the gamut from disarming citizens to immobilizing them physically and mentally, controlling where and what healthcare they get and what they can do at a bank.

Physical immobility? "Coerce" (Ray La Hood's announced mission) them out of their cars and onto government controlled transit. Do it long and deep enough and people stop thinking about having much physical mobility, which changes their world view.

Disarmament makes repression that much safer and easier for the government.

A regulatory state in which everyone is some kind of criminal, even when the laws are haphazardly enforced, has to breed common distrust, which makes a citizen militia less likely to form and/or be effective. If you live in NY, don't turn your guns in, it's unlikely to be something you are going to confide in people you don't know well, even from a couple of blocks away.

A centralized state finds its rule easier if citizens feel "guilty" and isolated from each other.

Glenn Reynolds' essay Due Process When Everything is a Crime ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713) got me thinking about all the little ways people get cowed into "compliance".

I doubt this is any great central plot, more likely a lot of fellow travelers pushing toward complimentary goals. I see the current disarmament push as another facet which compliments other agenda items. The facets may not be connected in a central plan but they tend to support the same end scenario.

Of course, George Soros' glee at the vision of riots in our streets, gives me a little pause. It is a cinch a number of people like that same vision and figure they can profit from it.

What won't they do to see it happen, is the question I think needs to be asked. That is another subject, another part of "common distrust".

That some people think others are too stupid to select the size of soda they "should"...and can proscribe a remedy for such failure...is a measure of how far we are toward citizen passivity.

Excuse my digression, but I don't know how to explain what I meant simply.
 
Last edited:
HarrySchell

Your points are well taken. I agree that both could/would be mutually beneficial to those who seek more control.

Thanks for clarifying your reasonable connection.

Guys, welfare and wealth distribution isn't the topic here, and it's not really germane to any part of the forum. Let's stick to the matter at hand.

Point forward I will stick to the topic.
 
We're back off the topic of gun control (and venturing into conspiracy theories), and prior warnings have been ignored. Lights out for this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top