Why do politicians put so much effort into the firearms topic?

I tend to think that there's not some huge orchestrated overarching plot with an endgoal, I tend to think that if the policies are successful it will pave the way for more intrusive legislation; the domino effect. Witness it in the UK. First they forbade all firearms, now they have more surveillance cameras per capita, the police shoot terrorist suspects because they're a bit olive tanned and carry a backpack, they have increased the number of heavily armed cops on the street, 'for your safety'. It's a slippery slope, not a secretly orchestrated plot. As one freedom after the other is removed, there is acceptance and complacency, instead of outrage. Sort of like that quote about the guy who didn't care when the nazis came for the jews, the gypsies, the masons and the communists - but when they came for him, there were none left to cause an outrage.

I think the conspiracy is less dangerous in that it is rigorously planned and is doomed to backstabbing and failure, while the slippery slope is nigh-on inevitable if it is put into motion.

I just don't know if I can buy that that many politicians are on a powertrip.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think most politicians are on power trips and like to hear themselves talk. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However, I don't think there is an immediate plot to forcibly take our guns and have another holocaust in the near future. I do, however, agree with the above poster in that politicians generally want more power and more control. They inch toward more power, more control, and more intrusion into our lives on a regular basis. Each new gun control law passed by the anti-gun lobby gives them a little adrenaline high and a feel of potency, which encourages more (hence the whole "power corrupts" concept).

They may even start with good intent, but the whole, "I know what's best for you better than you do" mentality just snowballs into, "You will do what I say b/c I'm in the ruling class" as they forget that the government is supposed to serve the people, not rule us. Do we really need any more laws and policies than we have now? Seriously.

So, if you're asking if there's a short term plan to grab our guns in the immediate future, probably not. But I think it's a long term slippery slope--not necessarily orchestrated, but maybe just not thought out past the short term using realistic, rather than emotional thinking--that only ends in bad things and loss of rights. I think if most politicians got their way, we'd slide down that slope until we were living in a police state under marshal law, at which point they'd *maybe* realize they were wrong (or else rejoice in the fact that they finally did have complete power and control).

So you need to look at the long term outcome, not just the here and now, as your above post would suggest. If you look long term, I think 'A' is, in fact, correct.

That said, I think option 'B' is also correct b/c it's easy to give anecdotal sob stories in support of gun control by showing people who have lost someone to a gun shot wound and quoting statistics about guns "going off" in kids' hands. It's a no-brainer (literally b/c the ignorant public swallows whatever garbage they spew) issue b/c they say, "Don't you want to save the children?" Of course, everyone says, "Yes!"

asleep!

I tend to think that there's not some huge orchestrated overarching plot with an endgoal,

Click to expand...

You must be asleep then.

By the way, you do not need a "conspiracy" when you already have lots and lots of people in general agreement. All you need is orchestration.

The gun grabbers know what will happen if they try for the big grab. They WILL NOT tell you what their end goal is. They will pursue their end goal nonetheless, only, a slice at a time.

By the way, you do not need a "conspiracy" when you already have lots and lots of people in general agreement. All you need is orchestration.

Click to expand...

Well said, ProficientRifleman!

Socialism isn't a conspiracy, but a disease.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

Click to expand...

Conspiracy??? More like an agenda.

i really think it's "b". i work for the government, i know we aren't competent enough to do widespread conspiracies like "a" would involve.

you have to look at what motivates these people. today, it's money and power. for politicians it's power in the form of political capital, and money from interest groups in their legal and illegal methods. assault gun bans and gun control in general sound good on the surface to uneducated people, and people that have lost touch with reality. these people are also generally unhappy and insecure, and look for causes to rally against to make them feel better about themselves.

politicians take advantage of these groups to gain money and power. it's really no more complicated than that in my opinion.

*edit*
in addition...

Now "b" seems more feasible. But are there not many more topics that would get the majority behind them? Whether you agree with them or not:

Click to expand...

problem is, others have already championed these causes, and already have the monopoly on the political capital and money being milked from these. it's like a new guy trying to break into an existing market. it was made easy for brady because of the situation she took advantage of (her hubby).

"The 2 most feasible reasons (in my mind at least) seem to me:

a. to disarm the general populace therefore reducing resistance (or easy resistance) against tyranny

b. because it is an easy 'feel good' topic for them to sway ignorant voters with."

EXACTLY!

Why do they spend so much time on firearms? Because they confuse firearm control with crime control. I see too much of the "we must do something, this is something so it must be done" rhetoric from politicians regardless of the topic. They don't think things through to their logical conclusion and/or they fail to consider the unintentional consequences. I also see too much "I must see where the people are going so that I may lead them" rather than trying to educate the public (after educating themselves) about popular topics.

I have a serious dislike of professional politicians. They scare me. That is because their job is not to make the world a better place but to keep themselves employed in one elected position or another. It's professional politicians that rant on about popular and controversial topics, like gun control, to get dollars contributed to them and to get the votes from people that might not otherwise vote at all.

It's about getting elected.

I'm of the opinion that the politicians themselves don't shape policy or hot-button issues, news agencies do through what they report. For instance, this whole 'check all the bridges for faults' reactionary behavior would not happen if the media hadn't been dedicating 80%+ of its airtime to talking about the bridge. Likewise, had the media even bothered to come within 20 miles of the border with Mexico or make note of all the things in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc. which indicates the true intent of the Islamists (and our relative success against them given how shackled the troops are), or the media simply reported anything other than negative reactionary things about firearm owners (going off on how damn criminals with sh*tty parents, etc. are the problem not the guy who shot the criminal who was crawling through his daughter's window and how he should be put in jail and all guns should be banned).

The media also effectively prunes the politician selection pool, both on the national and local scene, by selectively covering the candidates they want in a positive light, and the ones they dislike in a negative light (or not at all, if they've got a marginal likelihood to begin with). Witness the "Dean scream" as the perfect example: it was a non-event if not for the sabotage of the media, and only because he wasn't going the same direction that the media establishment wanted him to go.

I think your common Congressional rep is gonna be situtation B. And, for all the noise that gets made, it seems to be the same few people over and over again.

Now, I'm sure there is a some of plan A running around, however, I'm inclined to believe they are not people that are visible to the public.

Its to increase your dependance on them. This way when we are a socailist state if you disagree with them they can cut you off from everything. Liberals need you to be dependant on the government not the other way and when your dependant on them you become thier subject not a citizen...

Socialism isn't about gun control. It is about CONTROL!

Lots of b, but a operates in the backfield at all times.

IMHO, it's about control. Politicians hate anything that they don't control, as a rule. Civilian gun ownership prevents those in power from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force, and those attracted to power don't like that.

However, is it really believable that Joe Senator thinks there is ever a chance of himself and his peers being some sort of "ruling class"? Regardless of how destructive their tactics and lawmaking decisions can be on our personal freedoms, I just don't know if I can buy that that many politicians are on a powertrip.

Click to expand...

hahahahaahahahaaaaaaahahahahaaaaa

I have a strong feeling it's more of option "B" than "A". They're in it for themselves, and feel-good stuff is a perfect way to ensure the security of their jobs. "A" is just an added benefit for their sucessors.

guns, abortion , gay rights, and taxes will always raise political arguments.

Idiots think that gun regulations will stop crime.

Idiots' votes are as good as anyone's, and easier to get.

Say you go hunting, and you see two virtually-identical beautiful 8-point bucks. One of them is standing 25 yards in front of you, and the other one is 800 yards away, across a brush-choked canyon, and trotting away from you. Which one do you try to bring home?

That's why politicians try to get idiots' votes.

i agree with IA farmboy

i hate pro politicians too..... there should be term limits on ALL offices.... 2-4 years and you're gone..... give someone else a chance to make things work.... i think the forefathers had this in mind when this great experimental goverment was formed all that time ago.............. i do wonder why so many politicians are confused into believeing gun control is crime control... maybe it's just what might get them reelected and what ever it takes goes......

A & B are not mutually exclusive, mind you.

A) The helpless, dependent population is easier to control than that self sufficient, armed population.

B) Is the fig leaf, used to attract the well intentioned undereducated to the camp.
Bsub1) B also creates the illusion that the politician is "doing something" about crime, using "guns" as the scapegoat. This gets him/her off the hook for any results, however, it doesn't address any of the genuine underpinnings of crime problems.

Furthermore, the actual underpinings of urban crime are kryptonite to any incumbent city gov't party machine, and super double dooer kryptonite when that partie's name starts with a D, as is the case in 95%+ of incumbent urban city government machines.

To genuinely address the issue would be to admit defeat BOTH in terms of implementation AND ideology, and they just can't afford that.

And as long as the suckers of the world keep buying their poo, they don't have to.

They TALK about Gun Control because it's a Hot Button, that gets News Coverage, so they can appear like they're DOING SOMETHING, while avoiding discussion/action about real, vote-costing, career wrecking, out-on-a-limb issues like Border Security, Social Security & National Security. Gun Control retoric is the conversation that keeps anyone from noticing (and discussing) the Gorilla in the room.

Ghost has it right. Media hypes gun control, inflating the risks and covering up the benefits of gun rights.

Politicans think harping gun control is effective pandering. Its a one-two punch against individual rights and common sense. The side benefits of additional power over the masses favors both the politicans and the media.


Employment fights crime, gun laws just make citizens into serfs.

I question the premise of the OP. Very few politicians really care much either way about the topic. You have a few staunch anit-gun politicians in areas where gun control is popular, and a few really strong pro-gun politicians who know it plays well to their base. Most don't have gun control anywhere near their top issues.

And for good reason, really. Gun rights are near and dear to me, but objectively speaking, it isn't as important a topic as subjects like the viability of the economy, jobs, health care, the environment, crime, and war. Those things affect a lot more people a lot more immediately than gun rights.

The Democrats did embrace gun control pretty strongly during the Clinton years, but I think that was more of a political calculation than anything else. the polls showed pretty strong support for gun control (as they still do, unfortunately) so the Dems thought it would be a pretty safe issue to throw a bone to the "liberal" base and it made for some good photo ops with the Republican Bradys. Actually, neither Clinton or Gore was particularly anti-gun before the Clinton admin. Anyway, the calculation was a tremendous blunder and it cost them dearly in 2000.

On the Republican side, the Reagan admin is instructive. Reagan was as anti-gun a politician as ever held office judging from his terms as California governor. During his presidency, however, he toned it down a lot, presumably for poltical reasons. After he and GHWB were out of office, they both lobbied hard and twisted Republican arms to get the AWB and Brady Bills passed. Was this because of ideology, or because they calculated it would hurt the Democrats with pro-gun folks? I don't know the answer to that, but either way, they played pretty fast and loose with our rights.

Bottom line: politicians of both parties care a lot less about peripheral issues like gun control (add to that such issues as school prayer, gay marriage, abortion, etc) than they do about furthering the agenda of their parties and paymasters.

First....

You have to take a good hard look at the reasons WHY someone wants to be a politician in the first place. There are many reasons, but many politicians come from well-to-do families and go to very liberal ivy-league schools. Most of them, if not career politicians, were either doctors or lawyers in the real world. Notice how few successful business folks are successful politicians.

This all leads to the “I know better than you” attitude. The “do as I say, not as I do” way of thinking. Most, I think, start out with some noble thought or goal (no matter how ill conceived) of doing good and making the world a better place. Then, as the old saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and their goals become Machiavellian “reasons” to infringe on the peoples rights.

So, why be a politician? The money is not that good, heck, the “highest office in the land only pays a little over $200K per year. I know middle management types that make more than that. They couldn’t be trusted to run a company, never mind a country. So, what is the attraction? Power… Prestige…. Fame…. These are the things that motivate most people to become politicians, and this is what makes them dangerous to our liberty.