Quantcast

It seems to be happening again...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by PapaG, Jun 3, 2019.

  1. george29

    george29 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    Once everyone understands that Gun Control is not about Gun Control but People Control will everyone understand the real fight. Hillary, in an interview given before Trump was elected clearly stated that she didn't believe in The First Amendment either.
    "They" clearly understand the connection between the First and Second and have changed course by going after the First, first rather than the traditional getting rid of the Second then the First.
    The ACLU defended the Chicago Nazi's in 1976 because they were defending the First for all. Fast forward to today's information monopolies and one understands that "They" control thought through editing, disinformation, misinformation and content blocking.
    The ACLU is no longer a defender of Free Speech because the one or two upright lawyers of the ACLU have long been trampled.
    Guns are not under attack, our country is because America is truly unique in that We The People still rule although hacking, disinformation, misinformation and blocking content is rampant.
    Our thinking must change, once we thought that we must defend the Second at all costs in order to not lose The First, but I believe now that the real fight is over the First after which The Second will fall on itself.
    Speak up, write emails, wear hats, adorn your vehicles with stickers because that's how you keep you're guns in the end.
    I've been privileged to live in an era of being a part of the last generation and watching the new generations, the enemy is the same as it has always been, their tactics change but their intentions are the same, destroy the last standing empire of basic good in order to introduce a NWO that will by plan metamorphose from Socialism to Communism to Dictatorship. I should be gone by then and my offspring have been educated in how to survive the world they are inhabiting, you should too.

    http://www.areachicago.org/the-nazis-in-skokie/
     
    entropy, P5 Guy and mdauben like this.
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,966
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    It was not. In 1968 i was very active in fighting gun control. If fear of rebellion as a reason for gun control had been bandied about i would remember.
     
  3. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,641
    Location:
    Virginia
    The antigunners that I know personally may be a bit soft-headed, but they are not would-be tyrants or dictators. This idea that gun control is in reality "people control" falls wide of the mark, and makes the person advocating it seem like a conspiracy nut. Maybe some people at the top of the antigun movement, like Bloomberg, have some dictatorial tendencies, but I just don't see that among my neighbors who happen to be against guns. The vast majority are well-meaning, but greatly misguided. Look at it in the simplest way possible -- gun control is just gun control. (Occam's Razor.)

    Incidentally, the degree of polarization in this country is such that if you are involved in the pro-gun movement and live in a pro-gun community, you are unlikely to have friends or neighbors who are antigun. That's how caricatures about the opposite side are able to take root. We have no idea, really, of who our opponents are.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  4. HPCadm17

    HPCadm17 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    129
    Today, it's mass/school shootings. Fear is the ultimate weapon to control the masses and get them to do your bidding, and nothing is more fearsome to people today than defenseless innocents being slaughtered in spectacular fashion. Such events contain enormous political capital.

    Seeing that there is no such outrage against any other form of murder (knife, motor vehicle, strangulation, etc), and there is even a push for it (abortion), it is clear that "gun violence" is a smoke screen. The focus is not truly on eliminating violence or murder, but solely on preventing gun ownership. So, what is the threat to the government today that is driving the most recent effort to disarm the citizenry?
     
  5. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Luke

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,778
    If guns and owners were the problem there would be serious problems in this nation.

    Given that there are 100’s of millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of private citizens. We, lawful gun owners are not the problem, but it is their desire to take our rights.

    It was said best when someone said, “GUN CONTROL is not about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL.”
     
  6. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,855
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    The antigunners you know may be just "soft in the head," rather than aspiring dictators, but there's enough history behind tyrants banning guns, or societies that have enacted gun control laws falling into tyranny, that the matter is not simply a vacuous chimera.
    I have no doubt many antigunners simply believe their agenda will obtain a peaceful, free society.
    But I do not agree it will.
    I also believe there are those whose agenda does include severe gun control as well as other harsh dictats.
    As well, some believe that they can achieve harsh control WITH OUT gun control.

    There's more in the world of politics to concern oneself with, if one loves freedom, than just antigunners.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  7. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,641
    Location:
    Virginia
    Let me put it this way: On the antigun side, there's a focus against guns, but there is also a focus against gun owners. This is a cultural thing. Gun owners are seen as rednecks, rubes, Republicans -- in short, the kind of people with whom the urban elites would never associate. This is all a product of the polarization that has taken root in this country. We're not talking about guns any more; we're talking about tribes.

    And it works the opposite way too. To the pro-gun side, antigunners are not just antigunners, but are Communists, Socialists, the spawn of the Devil, and forces that are out to destroy America. Don't take my word for it -- just read it in the pages of the American Rifleman, often under the byline of Wayne LaPierre.
     
    HPCadm17 and P5 Guy like this.
  8. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,228
    Central governments want centralized control. A tiered system of arms is part of how they accomplish that around the world. In modern times it is the State as the modern form of nations is known that reserves the best arms for foreign use and domestic fallback. Each step removed from the central government is armed less, with everything being easiest if the civilians at the bottom of the system are not armed with firearms at all, and if they are then only with shotguns and sometimes handguns readily stopped by just about all armor, and in capacities and with rates of fire as easy to overpower as possible. Some places like Brazil even have power levels to keep them weak.
    Clearly the system means a smaller number of people in the tier above them can overpower them if necessary. While you need a large number of localized law enforcement to deal with an even larger number of dispersed civilians, and want both armed as little as possible. They will need at least what the civilians have, and so that is easier if the civilians have little or nothing.

    Of course that is contrary to the entire intent of the 2nd Amendment.
    Our Federal Government started to adopt a similar system after the more intentional dispersed system of militias and armories allowed the Civil War to happen too easily. The militias became more federalized, the armaments of the regionally controlled areas reduced. Industrialization and mass production and the required armament to make much difference in war after the example of WW1 had become such that they were well beyond what was desired in peacetime society. From that point on the 2nd was merely symbolic, but still codified into law, and why the Miller decision went the way it did. The result was along the lines of: 'Probably had a right to have anything useful for military use, but not a desired outcome, and since he is dead oh well just be sure not to accept a case like that again.' They wouldn't for a long time, until many decades of the laws everyone knew at that time were unconstitutional had time to mature and be normal.
    Our own government wouldn't have the funding until after the Great Depression to really stretch much muscle though. The Gangsters had created the acceptance of the Untouchables in the public, but it would take post WW2 funding to start changing things down the path they went.

    When this coincides with the desires of some portions of the public they will be given a loud platform to talk from, cited as experts, and supported. That is what is done around the world, including by the UN, which likewise wants to eliminate but will settle for reducing civilian small arms to the least capable and most tracked weapons possible.
    For a more domestic example:
    I don't think most of the antigun groups ever had anywhere near the membership of the NRA for example in the USA, but were often cited as experts while portraying the NRA as a thick headed minority.
    In reality most of the anti-gun groups were funded by a much smaller number of large backers, and the NRA a grassroots organization they gets its budget from a large membership.
    There certainly is many civilians that do not like gun ownership, and think that with less items capable of easily killing and maiming people that they will be better off.
    They don't always realize that means the predators of society will have easier prey. Other times they do, but have resources beyond the average person that will then allow them even greater security by reducing the threat posed by the commoner without impacting them as much.

    Yet the common criminal has never really been the main threat to the people. Just look at the last century and you will see in a few wars between governments more people died violently than to all common criminals we know about as far back as we can track it through history.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  9. Jeb Stuart

    Jeb Stuart Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Location:
    Confederate Country
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  10. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,648
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    Really?

    You appear to be conflating state and local restrictions and then comparing them with law at the Federal Level.

    Go to the Legal forum of this site and throughly read the primers that the attorneys - none of whom are "gun-grabbing liberals" - have provided to you. Learn what limitations on gun rights the Supreme Court - the people the Constitution says have sole authority to say what the Constitution means - say exist at the Federal level and what can be modified at the state level.

    Once you understand how Federal gun laws work and how they interact with state and local ordinances, then please feel free to join this conversation once again.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice