What do you believe is the PRIMARY reason for the push to increase gun control?

Fear. It's what's behind the push for almost all proposed laws.

Govt. Control of people. Or to in slave people.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

A politicians first job is to get elected their second job to to get re-elected, nothing else really matters to them.

Pete

A man with a gun is a Citizen, a man without one is a Subject.

'bout sums it up.

I don't think you can narrow it down to one. I think all of the reasons you gave are valid, just some are more so for different people. But, in the end, some people don't like them, either for what they are, what they can do, or their perception of these, and want them gone.

Ultimately, the Gun Control Issue is a Control Issue... These utopian statists want complete control to transform society. The most alarming thing about their ends, is that they cannot ever seem to define what their perfected society would look like or where the controlling stops.

Sure there are your garden variety morons who can't think past the slogans, but it is the Utopian Statists who understand full well what they are after...control.

Politicians need votes, so they will adopt platforms that reflect the wishes of large groups of voters. Gun control, abortion, marriage, etc. You'll note that despite the amount of air time all of those subjects have gotten, the amount of actual legislation on any of those subjects is relatively small. And the majority of "conservative" presidents have enacted gun control.

In other words, pushing for and fighting gun control is just a distraction that politicians use to get votes, because Americans don't really understand the real economic issues that we face as a nation.



As far as voters go, I don't think it is necessarily stupid that after the latest blood bath many people wish that 30 round rifles hadn't been available to the killer. And maybe some of these situations wouldn't have been as bad had they not been available, but it simply isn't practical to eliminate them and is an unrealistic desire.


I do not think anything about gun control is "evil" or about "control". The people that desire gun control just hate violence and want less of it. Their views aren't malevolent, just unsophisticated.

But the people who most angrily oppose gun control are also very unsophisticated, which is why they are so incredibly ineffective. "Subjugate" us? To do what?

It's the second one, but it has nothing to do with 'their supporters'. Makes all voter think the politicians are doing something. Then you get the politicians who want to control.

Now? To convince their supporters they are "doing something".

But, in the long run, I believe disarmament/subjugation (socialization) is the goal. Part of the run to that goal is convincing the voters that "something needs to be done."

The politicos want to disarm us so they can ultimately subjugate us.

Click to expand...

This. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et alia. Nothing new under the sun.

Humans with a taste of power, simply want more power. Our government was designed with checks and balances to keep the power decentralized and foster a strong citizenry. Look how our kings, dukes, and barrons...er, i mean, President, Senators, Governors, etc live today. They are out of touch and do not want to lose it. The Second Ammendment is the only thing keeping us from being subjects with no say. The ever so slow and steady erosion/encroachment of that God given right has prevented all out revolution. Will they over reach or play the long game? The Second Ammendment wasnt a mistake. They lived as subjects and didn't want that to happen again. It truly is a planned cold war of mutually assured destruction. They have better tools, training, and funding, while the 2a protects the citizens balance of numbers. Is three hundred years to long to remember and we compromise it away because we don't know what we have.

Control, plain and simple.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

So many of you believe that present day politicians are starting a process that will eventually take away all guns so future rulers can become dictators?

Or do you think Hillary believes that in 8 years in office she can ban and collect all guns, then become President for Life?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book
(quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

So future leaders can become dictators? No. To increase government control over the masses to ensure that only the safest, most efficient, "equal" policies and outcomes are implemented for our own good, no matter how long or what methods it takes? Yes. They don't want dictators, they want strong leaders that can impose the most logical and efficient policies without all the bother of getting approval from the citizenry with their silly, uninformed opinions. Oh, wait.....

badkarmamib said:

I don't think you can narrow it down to one. I think all of the reasons you gave are valid, just some are more so for different people. But, in the end, some people don't like them, either for what they are, what they can do, or their perception of these, and want them gone.

Click to expand...

Have to agree. Primary reason? Depends who you are referring to.

Hilda? Democrat leadership? Supream court? Clown at 1600 Penn? All imo have slightly different reasons.

None I o are for the publics good.

It's about control over others. Those who believe in an all-powerful government are more then uncomfortable with the idea that "lesser people" they propose to control - for their own good of course - have firearms, especially ones that look like military weapons.

Their solution is to outright ban military looking firearms, or those with what they consider to be large-capacity magazines, and then strictly regulate possession of what's left.

The primary reason is already there - control of the people - something they can't fully implement with an armed populace. Everything else is just an excuse to bring it about.

RX-79G said:

So many of you believe that present day politicians are starting a process that will eventually take away all guns so future rulers can become dictators? ...

Click to expand...

That is historically the upshot of disarming the proles. That is not to say it is the motive for present day gun control. I think that very often gun control advocates are sincere in thinking they are going to make the streets safer, or whatever the reason is this week.

But underneath it all, in the sense of being implied in gun control, is the idea that the people being able to oppose force with force is not really useful or desirable. That idea when taken to its logical conclusion, that the people do not need arms of their own, leads to the unintended consequence of really bad things happening sometimes to people who lack the means to fight back--history is full of examples.

How to explain this blindness to history? There is the old adage about not learning the lessons of history and thus repeating them, but I think there is more at work here, a spiritual resonance between the idea that the state should be all-powerful and the kind of thinking that eventually leads to dictatorship.

I think the conflict is essentially whether having a populace that can oppose totalitarianism is worth the level of violence we have in the US. A lot of people, including the politicians, can't see the imposition of tyranny in the way it happened in Germany ever happening in a diverse and open society like ours.

The Arab spring managed to occur in less armed societies than ours, in part because parts of the military sided with the people, just as much of our military would not go along with too much Federal control.


I would love to live in a society of wisely responsible gun owners. But so many gun owners are the least educated and most violent people in our society. Guns are used more than all other weapons combined in domestic murders of women.



So I think many pro-gun people are fooling themselves about the motivations of their opponents. And fooling ourselves that way makes us ineffective in engaging our opponents. We are largely living in la-la-land, and this poll aptly demonstrates that fantasy world.