True agenda of gun contro advocates.

K

Keiller TN

New member
Interesting article at Free Republic .com: "Opponents of gun restrictions often argue that even seemingly modest restrictions are the first step towards total bans on all guns or all handguns.
Some proponents of gun restrictions mock this: No-one is talking about gun bans, they say -- the slippery slope concern is groundless. In the words of Martin Dyckman, associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 12, 1993, at 3D), "no one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns. You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed."
Who is right here? Is it true that no-one is seriously proposing broad gun bans? Is it true that the slippery slope concern is just a bogeyman? Here are a few relevant quotes on this point. (All of them have been verified by me, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, with help from our excellent law library.)"
You can go to http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392160e53603.htm#politicians for the quotes and citations below.

"1. Quotes from gun control proponents praising the slippery slope, and urging mild restrictions as steps toward a total ban.
2. Citations to laws that in fact ban all guns or all handguns.
3. Quotes from politicians urging gun bans.
4. Quotes from leading media figures and institutions urging gun bans.
5. Quotes from advocacy groups urging gun bans.
These are of course only a subset of all the material that's available."
 
I'll bite on this one.

1. Whenever anyone proposes to change a vital, and instrumental part of the cornerstone of your nation, your suspicions had best be raised. Regardless whether it concerns firearms, freedom of speech, religion, search & seizure laws, whatever.

2. Anytime someone comes to you with their handout, it usually means they want your billfold, and they keys to your life.

3. Anytime government makes laws to force you do something, "For your own good". your in deep Kimchee already.

Keep in mind the processes that have occured around the world, and the means the governments there have chosen to " handle the situation". Such as Gun Crimes. Instead of dealing with the vermoin who choose to use firearms to wantonly take anothers life, they blame the gun, and leave you helpless to defend yourself against this criminal element.
Were seeing the same process being appllied in this country. No difference except the political boundaries. Same cause & effect gane being played for world domination against an entire planet of people who no longer have thge means to maintain freedom, therefore enabling slavery.

This entire worldwide guncontrol scam is nothing more than imposed slavery, period.


------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
Many anti-gun organizations will claim they are not wanting to confiscate firearms. Some aren't even "trying" to. Unfortunately, many people in those organizations, particularily their leaders, DO WANT guns to be OUTLAWED and CONFISCATED. They will try to appeal to moderates and claim "common sense" regulations and such to gain more support. People will even help their cause to push for these things who may not want confiscation, but think they are doing something to help the "problem". What is really dangerous is the fact that such "reasonable" regulations proposed are actually unreasonable and can lead to confiscation. Even if they don't want confiscation now (which many do), they will want it in the future. Registration and such will make confiscation more likely. There are many things the government is trying to do that may not be "intended" to harm liberties, but quite possibly could. There was recently news in Kansas that they will be using cameras at intersections to catch those who fail to obey red lights. I have heard this has already been implemented in other places. Camera's at every intersection and street corner would be able to track people's every activity. Do I believe that this is the intention of camera's on traffic lights? NO. Could they be used for that in the future? YES. People supporting registration/licensing and other regulations for firearms may honestly believe it would be "common sense safety". Common sense tells me this will ultimately lead to confiscation and loss of liberty. They may get the licensing and registration they are asking for. When they realize it hasn't eliminated crime or kept anyone "safe", they will start calling for bans on certain firearms and use the registration/licensing process to take them. Later, after realizing crime still hasn't been eliminated and no one is any "safer", they will take many other types and create extreme regulations and restricitions for the few kinds of firearms that do remain. When they have finally banned them all, they will realize none of it did any good in stopping crime, but they will keep the bans in effect. This has happened in Britain and Australia. The process is currenty occuring in California. This is not some conspiracy theory, it is what has and is happening.

They can only do this piece by piece. For example, they might go after handguns first. Not all firearm owners have handguns, so not all firearm owners will get involved. Over time it will become acceptable and they will go after the next type they don't think people should have. Or maybe they will do it city by city or state by state. A complete ban of certain types of weapons in Ohio might not upset people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Arkansas, or Florida since it doesn't involve them. Once several states have regulations the anti-gun organizations are proposing, for example mandated trigger locks, it will be much easier for the federal government to place the same regulations on the other states. A person living in a city where licensing/registration is already required probably won't put up too much of a fuss when the federal government requires it nation wide. A person living in Washington D.C. who cannont legally own a handgun will not be affected if they are banned on a national level.

Half the housholds in the country may have guns, but if few resist now because it "doesn't involve them", they too will ultimately lose. I know too many firearm owners who won't get involved in any way. If people don't remove their cranial bones from their posterior oriface; they won't be able to hear the confisction people coming. Even if they do, it may be too late.
 
+ when states such as NY & Kali have their bans in place & that still doesn't stop (the mostly non-existent) crime committed with such henious pieces of metal, they will push for further controls at the fed level because these nasty guns can come across state lines. "You see, the reason we have such a problem in NY, is that the gun-runners bring them up from VA."
 
Let me add a general principle, which is as applicable to the war on drugs as it is to the war on guns: When somebody attempts to advance a policy which simply CANNOT achieve, or even advance, their stated goal, you must conclude that they're lying about their goal. You then have to look at what those policies ACTUALLY achieve, to deduce what their real goal is.

Criminologists have proven, PROVEN, mind you, that gun control doesn't reduce crime. That it actually promotes it! Do the antis, who claim to want to reduce crime, respond by saying, "Ok, then let's find something which WILL work!"? No, they either ignore the studies, or attack them with dishonest statistical manipulations. Thus, their goal can't be to reduce crime. Everything they propose has the effect of making it harder to own guns. So their goal can't really be anything except to keep people from owning guns.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
The only legitimate purpose behind registration is confiscation. The only legitimate purpose behind confiscation is tyranny.

------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
 
All good point about the intended goal. I feel that the ban group is very small and that most people, like everyday life, have not thought about the consequenses of supporting G.C. Legislation. Watch C-Span and see the ignorance, not stupidity, but ignorance of the "facts."

I am an ex-anti that came over to the enlightment movement on my own volition. Since "subscribing" to TFL, I have heard many a good, nay, great arguments for the 2nd Amendment. Until we as a group (NRA, GOA, SAS, etc) start mainstreaming, the populacem only hears anti-propaganda: "If there are no guns, my kids will live." Somehow we need to finish that sentance, "If there are no guns, my kids will live IN SLAVERY."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top