Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Elitism is a good point. There is a reasonable view that being Democrat or Republican doesn't matter as the elites of both parties are in cahoots to keep their entire class in control for their economic benefit.
Elites really don't like that power sources can be distributed to the non-elite slice of society. That's why you see so-called conservatives being opposed to firearms that have the most utility in the defense against tyranny (EBRs, higher cap weapons).
Some theorists think that major social disruption won't be based on conservative vs. liberal (to use this stupid but current short hand terms) but economic elite vs. the mid and lower SES if member of those sections realize they are being used. However, the elites keep the members of those classes divided on social issues. A bit of divide and rule. Race, religion, sexuality, gun control, other similar social topics keep the peasants fighting among themselves and away from storming the gated communities.
The state is recognized as the monopoly user of force in most societies. The USA is variant as it enshrined the use of force against the state as a possibility in the 2nd Amend. Elite classes will fight against that.
That's a risk in SCOTUS decisions or discussions that focus on self-defense and common usage and reasonable restrictions. It's a risk in the 5 is enough crowd that denigrates those who want to have or carry more (I understand the convenience and risk analysis arguments) but folks who call the carry more folks as nutty commandos play into the hands of the limit the arms of the peasantry folks of the elites.
A rich Romney or Rich Diane calling an AR a weapon only for the military and not you nuts - they are protecting the elites. Don't fear the NRA, says the Donald - wonder why, rich boy?
Elites really don't like that power sources can be distributed to the non-elite slice of society. That's why you see so-called conservatives being opposed to firearms that have the most utility in the defense against tyranny (EBRs, higher cap weapons).
Some theorists think that major social disruption won't be based on conservative vs. liberal (to use this stupid but current short hand terms) but economic elite vs. the mid and lower SES if member of those sections realize they are being used. However, the elites keep the members of those classes divided on social issues. A bit of divide and rule. Race, religion, sexuality, gun control, other similar social topics keep the peasants fighting among themselves and away from storming the gated communities.
The state is recognized as the monopoly user of force in most societies. The USA is variant as it enshrined the use of force against the state as a possibility in the 2nd Amend. Elite classes will fight against that.
That's a risk in SCOTUS decisions or discussions that focus on self-defense and common usage and reasonable restrictions. It's a risk in the 5 is enough crowd that denigrates those who want to have or carry more (I understand the convenience and risk analysis arguments) but folks who call the carry more folks as nutty commandos play into the hands of the limit the arms of the peasantry folks of the elites.
A rich Romney or Rich Diane calling an AR a weapon only for the military and not you nuts - they are protecting the elites. Don't fear the NRA, says the Donald - wonder why, rich boy?