-----
I just received a comment on an old post and thought I'd bring it up to the front for discussion, if anyone is so inclined. Here is what has transpired so far:
- A quick question, guys, about something that has puzzled me for years about the NRA and others who oppose essentially any restrictions on firearms: what exactly do you think the agenda of gun control advocates ("anti-defense fanatics") is? I grew up in a small town in Texas surrounded by guns, and spent many a Sunday afternoon firing them with my dad and his friends; I've also listened to quite a bit of Alex Jones' material, so I understand there is a fear that the federal government is planning to herd everyone into concentration camps (or whatever), and that this would be much easier to do to an unarmed population. Avoiding the question for the moment of why they would ever want to do this (it would immediately destroy the US economy and evaporate the wealth of the Powers that Be, which wouldn't seem to be to their advantage). What I'm curious about is what you think the ulterior motives of millions of private citizens who favor controls on gun sales are? What motivates them if it's not a genuine desire not to see so many people murdered with firearms? Thank you for your time and consideration.
-
Anonymous said...
- FYI: I'll concede that I'm puzzled why a gun-control advocate goes around with a suit and a ponytail. I'm guessing I'm considerably less socially conservative than most of you good folks, but that look screams liberal douchebag even to me.
- Anon, this post is 5 1/2 years old. Nobody is going to be coming here
engaging in discussions. To answer your question, I believe the
majority of ordinary citizens who agree with gun control have motives of
wanting to see fewer killings and an inclination to look to government
for the solution.
I don't consider that to be an excuse, though. I consider it to be citizenship malpractice -- we owe it to ourselves and to our countrymen to be informed, and to understand that our votes have consequences that can lead to the use of force against others by those we enable.
Don't expect a debate here from me. I'm far too busy to drop what I'm doing for a one-on-one exchange where no one will see it. I'll put your comment and this reply in a standalone post later today, and if anyone wants to jump in and engage, go for it.
And assuming you also just posted the other comment, no argument about the ponytail, except to say that any aging man who has one has a right to do so without being hassled by me -- and if I try to hurt him for it, or for anything else about him or his lifestyle, he should be able to have the means to repel me with all appropriate levels of force required to make me stop.
Like I said, if you're so inclined, jump in. I try to get around to moderating comments several times a day.
8 comments:
I've noted that among the gun control group there are a few types of people:
1. The ignorant.
2. The willfully ignorant.
3. The willfully ignorant and malicious.
4. The malicious.
The last three types of people are not worth discussing anything with.
They've either made up their minds to remain stupid, stupid and hateful, or just hateful.
The politicians mainly fall into the last group. They're a bunch of sociopathic hypocrites.
Anonymous: "[W]hat exactly do you think the agenda of gun control advocates ("anti-defense fanatics") is?"
Why ask us? Why not ask the victim disarmers? They've obviously been very open about what they want, and consistent over the years:
- "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." then-U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (now US VP, and just appointed by President Obama to the commission to "investigate" solutions to "gun violence")
- "If I could have gotten 51votes...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." - Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), February 4, 1995 edition of 60 Minutes
- "As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year." - Senator John H. Chafee, Rhode Island (June 11, 1992, Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992)
- 'There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." - Michael Gartner, former NBC News President, USA Today, January 16, 1992
- "If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998. (Cited 3/05/2000)
- Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes" - Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000
- "Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the US-is going to take time….the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal." - Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (“The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976)
- "Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons." - Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner
- "No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." - U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat
I could go on pasting anti-civil rights quotes from the victim disarmers all day, but WoG/Blogger only has several terabytes of drive space. If you need more, Anonymous, try some web searches.
Anon: I believe that some of the anti-rights folks truly think that guns have magical powers that make them dangerous to innocents,and that they want to stop random killings and crime.
I also believe that some are tyrants in the making. They would destroy the notion that the individual alone is responsible for himself. They would like some over-arching "state" to tell the plebes the what and how of living their lives.
The problem with the first is that it doesn't work. Chicago, New York City, D.C., and many others have draconian restrictions on firearm ownership. Look at the gun violence in those cities. There are vast amounts of information available to confirm this. Unbiased information can be found, via internet, from government sources, both U.S. and overseas.
The second issue was addressed by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration and Constitution. A free citizenry must have the ability to fight a tyrranical government. And for the extremists who say a group of riflemen can't fight a government equipped with aircraft, artillery, WMD's, etc. I refer them to the Taliban, Al Queda, the Viet Cong, ad nauseum. And wouldn't it be the very definition of a tyrranical government to use such weapons on their own people?
Personally, I am a retired Marine, have been a sworn peace officer, and have had the unfortunate experience of using deadly force against an intruder in my own home. He was able to stab two of my family before being taken down by me. Evil people exist in this world, and I am glad that I was able to defend my family from them. No law would have kept this convicted felon from acquiring a weapon, burglarizing an occupied dwelling, and aggravated battery, all felonies in that jurisdiction. He simply didn't care what laws he broke.
The anti-rights people would rather the criminals have access to weapons and the law-abiding citizen be rendered helpless.
I hope this helps some, and again direct your attention to the vast amount of information available in this modern age (I'm an older guy and find the internet much more easy to use than before).
Mr. Aynon, Sir.
If you go back a few years and research the people that want to ban gun, their names say a lot.
The Brady Campaign used to be Handgun Control Inc. Their stated goal at the time was the total ban and possession of handguns. Then, after the deadly "assault weapons" became a cause celeb, they changed to the kinder and gentler name. Their goal also change in that they added the rifles to their list of what they want totally banned. Their founder Pete Shields had a plan to chip away at our rights a little at a time until they achieved their goal.
The Coalition to stop gun violence (CSGV) changed their name a few years ago from the Coalition to Ban Handguns. Now they just want to ban all guns right down to your Fathers Remington 700 deer rifle. Also known as the M42 Sniper rifle in the Military.
Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) is the one that made up the term "assault weapon". He depended on the average person not knowing the difference between a semi-auto rifle and a machinegun. He has been using this confusion to advance the anti-gun agenda.
I hope this help explain why we fight as hard as we do. They will never stop and we must never stop either.
I would say that any kind of leftist inclination is very tightly correlated with support for gun control. There are the vicious, power hungry, authoritarian leftists, like Bloomberg, Schumer and Clinton at one end, and lackadaisical, la-de-da liberals at the other end, but there is very strong support for gun control across the entire leftist spectrum.
If someone so much as leans to the left, or supports the Democrat Party, it's pretty much a given that they support banning guns because the Democrat Party’s most prominent leaders are gun banners.
It seems to be a collectivist or group power thing - they want all the power of guns for themselves, and none for anyone else. That can be because they're naive idealists, as some are, such as teachers, or because they're vicious sociopaths, like the professional, political gun banners - Schumer, Clinton, Biden, Feinstein, Boxer, and now that he's showing his true colors after the election, Obama.
That’s my best guess.
We also have the example of many countries (UK, Australia) and jurisdictions (NYC, NJ, California) that "progressed" from "reasonable, common sense" restrictions to outright bans. After "mean-looking" modern semi-auto rifles, it will be semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns, then lever and pump-action rifles/shotguns, and finally anything that will shoot more than once without reloading. It's not about public safety or public health - there are far more pressing problems in these areas - it's about citizen control.
I can't speak for all folks who would like to see more restrictions on the sale of guns, but I personally believe that with great rights comes great responsibilities. I would like to see laws that require training and education before a person can purchase or own a firearm. I would like to see laws that require responsible ownership, including the obligation to report a lost or stolen firearm, store it safely, and adequately insure it in the event it is negligently stored or used and an injury results. I would like to see background checks for all purchases and periodic licensing and registration of all guns. In other words, the well regulated part of the 2nd Amendment should be taken as seriously as the right to bear arms. I believe the protection against federal tyranny rationale for opposing reasonable restrictions is a right wing fantasy that is unsupported by the constitution or common sense. The typical guy I see at the range is no more capable of defending himself or others from government troops than any other regular KFC customer. A 300 pound AR toting clown would be no obstacle to the US Army supported by tanks, air cover, and drones. Any group of well trained light infantry would disarm or kill the typical trash talking NRA zealot quickly and without trouble. For home self defense, nothing beats a twelve gauge. In close quarters a revolver is just as effective at protecting a home as an AR, and I would pick an 8 round 1911 in tight quarters against a determined attacker over any other defensive firearm. Simply put, most of the crap people are buying to line gun manufacturers pockets and fuel red neck and gang bang fantasies are completely unnecessary and unrelated to national security or home defense. If we are serious about the Second Amendment being related to defense against tyranny, we should adopt a program like Switzerland and candidates should have to pass fitness requirements. Otherwise, a shotgun is fine.
I reading this article and others that have been posted over time, there is one thing that we need to educate people on. All the bans in the world would not have stopped many (if any) of the mass shootings that have occurred. This is the fallacy that the people that advocate gun control are not processing and the press does not ask.
Lets ask our selves this basic question: If this gun was banned would it have stopped the last mass killing? Basically, if a person wants to kill many people, then they find a way to do just that. If not for a gun, then an explosive or airplan works just fine.
Now, lets examine the second amendment. If you look at the Bill of rights (the first 10 amendments), you will note that they are about personnel freedoms and preventing the government from taking liberties on the individual. The second amendment is the people's way of keeping the government in check with the wishes of the people. It is our right to form a militia, and to keep that militia armed.
I copy the quotes below and I want you to think about the statement at the end:
- 'There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." - Michael Gartner, former NBC News President, USA Today, January 16, 1992
- "If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998. (Cited 3/05/2000)
If you go back in time, I'm sure England did not think that the colonist needed to be armed either.
Post a Comment