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

[JTHunter]

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

This is the option I chose but there were 2-3 others that were nearly as good. If this poll was multiple choice and then the top 3-5 listed, it might be more interesting to see how the answers went.

RX-79G - at her current age, there is some question if HRC can survive even one term. Hopefully, we won't have to find out.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Your comment just makes me think about the way pro-gun people (mis)categorize their opponents, and mistake the fringe for the majority.

I think most people are good.
I also believe that there are sects of people in power who want us under their thumb.

It's simply an aspect of human nature that will not change. Government is not benevolent.

 

[Red Wind]

I think most people are good.
I also believe that there are sects of people in power who want us under their thumb.

Right. In the last 2,000 years, Hitler (1889-1945) and Stalin (1878-1953 ) might have been the two most evil people. As the great historian, Allan Bullock, opined, "It was the misfortune of the human race that both lived as virtual contemporaries."

Parallel lives cost the planet over 100 million human beings.

 

[entropy]

The answer that is a runaway in the poll is the ultimate reason. All the other answers listed, as well as many other reasons, are the way they present it to others to build support for it.

 

[barnbwt]

I think there are lots of people who naively believe, from a good heart, that total disarmament would solve society's ills.

How many, do you think? 2%? 15%? Everyone who votes against Trump this year?

What on Earth makes you think they're all necessarily voting against Trump? More leading questions in an attempt to drag the thread off the rails?

The desire for gun control = desire for loss of freedom is YOUR belief, not the belief of any people that you can identify. Theoretical people in philosophy books are no more real than elves.

If you can help yourself, try answering the question about who would say they wanted tyranny for themselves.

Wait, was I supposed to post whatever YOUR belief on the subject is? Or is yours somehow The Truth on the matter and mine not by virtue of your belief it isn't? Of course what I post is my opinion, how could it not be? And what the hell is your problem with it being my belief, anyway? Am I not so entitled? At least I bothered to explain my rationale for your benefit. As to your 'philosophical elves,' I'm speaking of history, not merely philosophy (which in my view is useful for explaining fundamental historical social shifts from the human perspective)

You asked me what person would desire tyranny. I said it is people who desire it, and explained at length why they would (from several angles), and the type of person they are likely to be. You then say I have not identified anyone

What constitutes "identification" in your eyes for the purposes of this conversation? Specific prominent individuals whom I have likely not met in person and could never hope to make a thorough, personalized examination of based on the evidence available? Bigoted assumptions about stereoptypical demographic groups in the face of the obvious fact they are too varied to lay such assumptions upon? Or the motivations and socio-economic beliefs inherent to a large, diverse portion of mankind since antiquity that --again, since antiquity-- has emboldened and supported tyranny as long as records have been kept? (The last one is what our system of government is actually designed around, btw)

Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, the people demanding tyranny don't see it as tyranny (at the time). They see it as strength, charisma, divine will, or destiny. People with weak character (often due to economic privation) routinely seek out saviors from the problem/enemy of the day, especially when the demands are unrealistic (creating the future demand for even greater concentration of power in the hopes it will be enough to solve the issue). Charismatic leaders often invent problems/enemies so as to harness & direct this support for their own benefit.

-Ambitious political operatives (seeking personal expression through power over others) direct the;
-Morally-conflicted hypocritical 'busybodies' (very similar to political operatives) who work to whip up the;
-Ignorant/fearful (seeking salvation from a Great Leader with a bold solution) whose fervor reinforces the worldview of;
-Cynical nihilists (humans need to be dominated to reach their potential and are hopeless as free agents) who applaud the descent into despotism

These tropes exist in lots of different facets of various political & demographic groups in varying amounts, yet they are all drawn to gun control (and other anti-liberty policy). All think think they are being altruistic in their pursuit, same as with every other human catastrophe. Does it really matter what dream they think they are chasing?

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

Okay, you didn't understand the question:

I can define an "artificial intelligence", but they don't exist.

You have defined a person that wishes tyranny on themselves, but what I asked for was not the definition, but for you to identify the actual living people that wish to live under tyranny.

An example of one such modern US citizen, with a quote demonstrating their desires, would be a great way to illustrate that you aren't speaking purely of a theory.

 

[barnbwt]

The answer that is a runaway in the poll is the ultimate reason. All the other answers listed, as well as many other reasons, are the way they present it to others to build support for it.

He gets it. Different paths purusing the same state of social entropy p). Civil rights exist at a higher state of social 'energy' that has historically been rather unstable, or rather, unsustainable, as its success forces it to operate at a larger and larger scale (and representative governments historically don't scale very well into large, sprawling, diverse populations and retain the positive attributes that make them so effective at preserving most people's interests)

TCB

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The key word in "gun control" is "control".

It's not about "safety", it's not abiut "common sense".

It's all about power over the people...control.

 

[HetchHetchy]

I think you did a nice job of dissecting the push but I think the PRIMARY reason in simply power and control and thus a combination of at least three of the reasons listed.

Gun control is an emotional wedge issue. It's a way to herd and corral voters and to get elected.
The choice I went with - divide and conquer.

Voters view pro-2A groups as corrupt/old/male/white/fat/etc. and wish to oppose them.
One group that can be divided out.

Many voters are ignorant and afraid of guns. They just want them gone.
and
The politicos want to be able to show their supporters they are "doing something."
It's low hanging fruit for some politicians.

Like abortion, support for increased gun control has simply been institutionalized in some circles.
See above for said politicians.

Yep.

 

[barnbwt]

You have defined a person that wishes tyranny on themselves, but what I asked for was not the definition, but for you to identify the actual living people that wish to live under tyranny.

An example of one such modern US citizen, with a quote demonstrating their desires, would be a great way to illustrate that you aren't speaking purely of a theory.

Ah, found the dirtbag I remembered earlier; Joe Manchin (of Toomey fame) --"Due process is what's killing us right now" in reference to stripping people of their freedoms based solely on suspicion. Considering another senator (Ted Kennedy may God damn his soul) was on the list for several months only a few years ago, it's rather naive of Mr. Manchin to think this restriction could not be placed upon himself. Whole lotta people including Mr. Trump were all over this line of thinking, too.

Another is any of a large number of respected religious leaders, who routinely stump in favor of gun control as the solution to the parish's (or other parishes') violence/crime problems. This despite the abject, ongoing failure in obtaining such a positive result, vs. leaving innocents unarmed and vulnerable to prosecution should they defend themselves. The large, black congregations in big cities with close ties to national political or media outfits naturally have the greatest visibility, but there are very strong (and arguably more impactful) showings in the Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, and pretty much every other prominent faith with leadership operations near big cities, where the polticos doling out social-aid money deals are chasing gun control (it flows from the top, from the people who want to rule, teaming up with people who are willing/want to be ruled)

Stop by pretty much any anti-gun protest, and you'll readily find people who will say the government alone should retain a monopoly on force (though not in as many words, of course, and they naturally think such a Leviathan could be controlled to act in the interests of its powerless subjects despite all the historical evidence to the contrary). Admittedly, I've found these types of people (not the true believers at the protests, but the ones who sympathize at home) simply haven't thought that hard about the consequences of their desires. They don't realize that they are seeking tyranny...but they are most assuredly seeking it despite their altruistic intentions.

Outside the US, in the third world, you'll find people gleefully flocking to tyrannical horrors like ISIS or genocidal dictators, typically because even those monstrosities are better than the alternative: becoming the focus of these demons. So they willingly submit their freedom for the sake of a brief moment of peace or security.

I can define an "artificial intelligence", but they don't exist.

That's rather ignorant; an AI is basically what a government made up of humans is --we're just the transistors instead of silicon crystals. We feed it data and resources to function, and it attempts to calculate the best solutions for us (and there's obviously many ways to do this, be they Khan, Czar, Prophet, Comrade, Fuhrer, President, or Senate). Like Churchill said, our representative system is pretty close to the best that's been devised thus far, but still has a lot of failings (short but successful lifespan compared to feudal or monarchical chief among them). And like any form of intelligence, sometimes they can fail to work properly, and become unstable or outright insane --this is how Rand always described life in Soviet Russia.

TCB

 

[hdwhit]

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

I think these sorts of polls always need a "none of the above" response.

In the case of this poll, none of the reasons offered matches my "primary" understanding of the issue and the reasons that come close attribute nefarious motivations to the people pressing for gun control that I don't think the majority actually possess.

 

[Zoogster]

Control.
It takes fewer resources to control people when only those who have a career carrying out your edicts or protecting you are well armed.
From a ruling perspective this is good. With a monopoly on modern arms your forces will always trump any you or those following your orders might face. If 200 LEO can take on 10,000 rabble, then problems require few resources to deal with. From the ruling perspective that is always good.
When what is being enforced is something like laws of the Third Reich, well some citizens may wish it took more resources to implement those policies.

People that want it for that reason promote and encourage disarmament for other reasons. So they will back grieving moms, or minority political groups, or anyone else making progress in disarming the population.
They are merely the means to the end.

I would argue it is a natural progression that is only resisted when people demand it strongly enough.
Throughout history it has always been done. The only time rulers have liked their people armed is when they fear an outside force even more than their own people and feel armed citizens can reduce the threat foreign forces pose.
When they feared invasion typically.
That was also a big part of the old militia arming, a backup to the actual military forces in times when invasion was a common and real threat.

When they got powerful enough that invasion and foreign forces no longer were as scary, empires and today nation states generally disarmed their populations who posed a greater threat to them than anyone else at that point.
Since entering the nuclear age the US has really feared nobody invading, it is expected that any war big enough to pose a direct threat to the rulers is going to involve lots nukes and citizens with rifles make no positive difference.
In the modern age the US has no real fear of invasion, and is the biggest military power on the planet.
Rulers don't like their subjects posing a threat to them.
So the people being armed outlived its usefulness.


It often has little to do with crime. Why do you think they go for effective modern long guns? They don't fear pistols, even though pistols are behind like 90% of homicides by firearm. They can get those later when more important weapons, like those that actually give the people power, are removed.
Whether your husband has a SxS shotgun or a select fire military rifle doesn't change how you end up if you get shot, so it doesn't change domestic issues either. The type of gun makes no difference. In fact a strong man, like blue collar workers, could strangle or club to death most women. Firearms are just easy to use and what everyone in society is taught is the tool for killing, so people revert to them when they want to kill, but they certainly are not what enables them to kill.
Now they have focused on mass shootings as the reason effective modern arms are too dangerous to own, because they can gain more traction on the same goal they have had for decades.

They will use whatever is needed. And it may be a combination of things. Multiple ways to make someone prohibited. From felonies, to misdemeanors, to domestic problems, to mental illness, they will continue to expand how many ways they can keep someone from being legally armed at all.
While at the same time working to reduce the types and effectiveness of the arms those not snared by a prohibition can own.
They will divide and conquer the community where they can. Pit single action revolver shooters against semi auto pistol shooters. Pit hunters and outdoorsmen against the self defense oriented.
They will try divide and conquer where they see a weakness, with the goal of reducing the the effectiveness of arms possessed by civilians, and reducing how many civilians are armed at all.

The UN even has a whole department just for disarming civilians and working towards that goal at the global level.
The world envisioned by rulers has only the rulers and law enforcement armed.
Like in China.

 

[RX-79G]

Ah, found the dirtbag I remembered earlier; Joe Manchin (of Toomey fame) --"Due process is what's killing us right now" in reference to stripping people of their freedoms based solely on suspicion. Considering another senator (Ted Kennedy may God damn his soul) was on the list for several months only a few years ago, it's rather naive of Mr. Manchin to think this restriction could not be placed upon himself. Whole lotta people including Mr. Trump were all over this line of thinking, too.

Another is any of a large number of respected religious leaders, who routinely stump in favor of gun control as the solution to the parish's (or other parishes') violence/crime problems. This despite the abject, ongoing failure in obtaining such a positive result, vs. leaving innocents unarmed and vulnerable to prosecution should they defend themselves. The large, black congregations in big cities with close ties to national political or media outfits naturally have the greatest visibility, but there are very strong (and arguably more impactful) showings in the Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, and pretty much every other prominent faith with leadership operations near big cities, where the polticos doling out social-aid money deals are chasing gun control (it flows from the top, from the people who want to rule, teaming up with people who are willing/want to be ruled)

Stop by pretty much any anti-gun protest, and you'll readily find people who will say the government alone should retain a monopoly on force (though not in as many words, of course, and they naturally think such a Leviathan could be controlled to act in the interests of its powerless subjects despite all the historical evidence to the contrary). Admittedly, I've found these types of people (not the true believers at the protests, but the ones who sympathize at home) simply haven't thought that hard about the consequences of their desires. They don't realize that they are seeking tyranny...but they are most assuredly seeking it despite their altruistic intentions.

Outside the US, in the third world, you'll find people gleefully flocking to tyrannical horrors like ISIS or genocidal dictators, typically because even those monstrosities are better than the alternative: becoming the focus of these demons. So they willingly submit their freedom for the sake of a brief moment of peace or security.


That's rather ignorant; an AI is basically what a government made up of humans is --we're just the transistors instead of silicon crystals. We feed it data and resources to function, and it attempts to calculate the best solutions for us (and there's obviously many ways to do this, be they Khan, Czar, Prophet, Comrade, Fuhrer, President, or Senate). Like Churchill said, our representative system is pretty close to the best that's been devised thus far, but still has a lot of failings (short but successful lifespan compared to feudal or monarchical chief among them). And like any form of intelligence, sometimes they can fail to work properly, and become unstable or outright insane --this is how Rand always described life in Soviet Russia.

TCB

Okay, so no one. Thanks.

And I'm not "ignorant". You don't understand what AI is.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I submit that the focus on politicians and government is misplaced.

It all really comes back to the voters. Where there are enough pro-RKBA voters, such as in places like Arizona, Idaho and Florida, many of the politicians elected to office are pro-RKBA. Where there are too many anti-gun voters, many of the politicians elected to office are anti-gun. It's a matter of satisfying one's constituency.

Nutrition nazis and gourmets decry fast food; but enough of the public wants it, so fast food outlets flourish. Dianne Feinstein has been elected to the Senate since 1993 because she's satisfying enough voters.

It is, and will continue to be about our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we see at the mall, etc. Some of them, many of them in some places, don't like guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns.

The real question is why are so many of our neighbors, co-workers, people in our communities, etc., anti-gun.

Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.

People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. The city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.

Also, in an urban milieu guns aren't the familiar, useful, everyday tools of most "regular" folks -- as they historically tended to be in more rural environments. In cities guns aren't about protecting the livestock from predation and putting meat on the table. The city dweller associates guns with crime and drug dealers and unbalanced people taking out their anger on innocents.

The struggle for the RKBA is increasingly a matter of a clash of cultures.

 

[HetchHetchy]

I think these sorts of polls always need a "none of the above" response.

In the case of this poll, none of the reasons offered matches my "primary" understanding of the issue and the reasons that come close attribute nefarious motivations to the people pressing for gun control that I don't think the majority actually possess.

The poll is well defined. If none of the reasons "offered matches your "primary" reason for the push to increase gun control" (it would be interesting to know what your primary reason is?) then just skip it.

Not all (or even most) of what's behind gun control can be distilled down to one (or even a few reasons.) Individuals however should be able to order those reasons they feel are most pertinent.

 

[HetchHetchy]

...Why do you think they go for effective modern long guns? They don't fear pistols, even though pistols are behind like 90% of homicides by firearm...

Not true. When Handgun Control, Inc. (since re-branded as the "Brady Campaign") pushed to make handguns illegal in the US, it got its face ripped off in the political arena.

Why? Because down deep A LOT of people of all political persuasions, shapes, sizes, ethnicities, socioeconomic statues, etc. WANT their handguns.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes Urban vs Rural plays a huge role.

Rural people learn to be more self reliant, there is not someone nearby that makes a living doing everything for you that you can just call up. A tool for killing things is something that you realize is important when you live more rural.
You have to kill stuff if you live rural. Mice, rats, things that try to kill your livestock. If you harvest your own livestock it is often a simple solution as well.
A gun might not be the right tool for all the killing, but you certainly can't wish away the requirement to kill things.
Plus there is land to hunt and space to shoot, so guns are positively used for recreational pursuits.


While in a dense Urban environment there is the constant highlight of any criminal use of firearms because that is generally the only use of firearms you hear about, and there is more police in a given area. The perception is that guns are bad and there is always a professional nearby to deal with things better than any regular person could.
You end up with a more authoritarian society, where people rely on a large police force, which of course rarely stops crime as it is being committed.
Since crime still happens this creates a situation where the ignorant want fewer of those guns causing problems, and yet even more police.
As our nation urbanizes more and more of the majority of the citizens will live in such places.

Interestingly many of the big cities that have cleaned up crime really just gentrified. They just moved crime to a nearby town or city.
Hard for a low income person with teenagers up to no good to even live in New York City anymore. Of course they will claim success in cleaning up the streets anyways.

 

[JR24]

While there are definitely those who desire civilian disarment for total control, IMO (Hillary!); most politicians support gun control to get a quick easy emotional bump (and votes).

They want to take an anti-crime stance BUT actually finding the money for more police, or tackling the socioeconomic issues that lead to the majority of crime (namely drugs and poverty) is HARD. Blaming it all on the tool is much easier, and much of the public eats it up.

Its lazy "problem solving" that will actually solve no problems.

At least that's what I think.

 

[LiveLife]

Keep in mind some historical events and factual realities.

During the Los Angeles riot over Rodney King and various disasters like hurricane Andrews, Katrina, etc., the government/police/military were temporarily unable to maintain law and order and many people were robbed, raped and killed.

After hurricane Andrews, I remember a news reporter on TV who interviewed two ladies on a lot where their house used to be and they were crying, expressing how people they grew up with went around the neighborhood robbing and raping people with baseball bats and only thing that prevented the two ladies from being raped and robbed was they were armed with a shotgun and a pistol.

When many stores in LA were looted and burned with gangs running the streets, police could only watch but some stores survived the destruction because Korean store owners defended them with guns. I lived in LA during this time and gangs in many surrounding areas were also looting their neighborhoods and some people barricaded streets with cars and posted large signs that read, "If you do not live in this street, be prepared to be shot" and people took up 24/7 patrol with guns as police could not provide law and order in those areas during the riot.

My family now lives where mountain lions and bears roam and they have attacked live stock and people in the area. Calling 911 won't help and my neighbors are armed to defend themselves against wild animals at the recommendation of the local police and sheriff department.

Over the decades, I have talked to Democrats and liberals I work with and one by one, they knew or became victims of robbery or home invasion robbery where multiple robbers/gang members kick in the door to steal/rape/kill the home owners. Many of the coworkers who used to be anti-gun are now gun owners and many have obtained carry permits as they feel police cannot always provide individual protection, especially during disasters. They now view Second Amendment as a rights issue, not a partisan issue.

I believe not all Democrats are anti gun but a small percentage in the democratic party has pushed the gun control agenda over the decades with growing fervor with a motive they won't stop until they take away all the guns from the law abiding citizens of this country.

Why?

Perhaps they (whether Democrat or republican) don't want people to defend themselves from danger caused by natural disaster or man.

 

[entropy]

He gets it. Different paths purusing the same state of social entropy p). Civil rights exist at a higher state of social 'energy' that has historically been rather unstable, or rather, unsustainable, as its success forces it to operate at a larger and larger scale (and representative governments historically don't scale very well into large, sprawling, diverse populations and retain the positive attributes that make them so effective at preserving most people's interests)

TCB

Precisely. I urge everyone reading this thread to read Edward Gibbons' "The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" Rome got too big, got involved in too many military actions and spread it's military too thin then farmed out it's military to the provinces because 'the people of Rome' became enamored with 'panem et circences' and lost the will to fight for themselves. All this time, internally, The Senate and the Emperor battled for (borrowing a line from Monty Python) supreme executive power. The only thing missing in the current situation is a President outrightly declaring themselves Emperor (though BHO's use of Executive Orders is tantamount to it), and the Preatorian Guard (Secret Service?) deposing a sitting President, er Emperor. (or Empress.) For any who wish for such, remember that them doing so brought the Empire many years of terror under either tyrants such a Nero, or puppets such as a Claudius.

It's simply an aspect of human nature that will not change. Government is not benevolent.

Ironicaintit is correct. However, Anarchy is definitely not benevolent. I get a kick out of the 20 something kids that think "Anarchy would be cool." (An actual quote from one I worked with.) I told her that while I am trained to survive in a state of anarchy (for what else is modern war?) I ferverently wish that it never comes about, and that she who has no training or survival skills, would probably last until the scum that took her(because, not surprisingly, she was anti gun) and raped her got tired of her. That's what anarchy is. The look on her face was priceless.

 

[ATLDave]

Primary reason among politicians or among "mere citizens" who are in favor of gun control?

For the latter, I think it's mostly a mistaken-but-honestly-held view that it just has to be possible to "do something" and make violence decline by fiat. Many of them have never really "popped the hood" on those assumptions, and just think rules against guns = fewer guns in bad hands = less bad people doing things with guns.

Maybe a quarter of them have spent a little time trying to think critically about it, but have been caught in the echo chamber (as we should all guard against - it happens on all sides) and have been fed scholarship and journalism with serious, fundamental errors baked into it, and have had their knee-jerk reactions re-inforced.

For another sub-set, there is a "culture war"/tribal component. It's a way to kick the ignorant rubes who are assumed to also fight against gay rights or women's control over their own bodies or environmental regulation or whatever.

As for the politicians, some are so stupid they buy what they're selling; most are just using it as a wedge issue (in some states) and/or a base-rallying move (in others).

 

[HoosierQ]

Politicians, despite the fear that so many people have, have exactly one motivation: staying in office and keeping their own personal gravy train going. They do not want to subjugate us...come on! Think about that. Their "gravy" flows from us to them. If we become a bunch of serfs, the money slows WAY down. Then need us free and buying things and paying taxes for them to get rich.

So the primary reason politicians support gun control is to appeal to a constituency that they believe will vote for them because of that support.

 

[Bullseye]

The Webster subjugate definition: to defeat and gain control of (someone or something) by the use of force : to conquer and gain the obedience of (a group of people, a country, etc.).

The Cambridge subjugate definition: to defeat people or a country and rule them in a way that allows them no freedom.

North Korea is an extreme example of subjugatation.

Yet there are lesser degrees that would still satisfy the powers that be such as removing the threat of rebellion by taking away the Constitutional rights of the people. Take away the 2A, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peacefully assemble and they can balance things any way they want from there, giving us whatever freedoms and luxuries they choose to.
It makes very little difference with world economics. Power is money.
At my age, I am standing my ground for the future of this country and my grand kids. In the time I have left, I will probably enjoy the benefits of the US I grew up in for the rest of my days, but these kids know little of it and therefore, it isn't an issue. They don't know what it should be like.
It's our job to educate the young. We fight for the future of America, not for our own selfish agenda.
If I am paranoid of the motives of the government and extreme in my suspicions, it isn't a bad thing. I really do believe that anyone in power is never satisfied. They ultimately want to play God.

 

[HetchHetchy]

Politicians, despite the fear that so many people have, have exactly one motivation: staying in office and keeping their own personal gravy train going. They do not want to subjugate us...come on! Think about that. Their "gravy" flows from us to them. If we become a bunch of serfs, the money slows WAY down. Then need us free and buying things and paying taxes for them to get rich.

So the primary reason politicians support gun control is to appeal to a constituency that they believe will vote for them because of that support.

I agree. It makes me wonder if the pro-2A camp is hurting itself by focusing so ardently on subjugation?

 

[RX-79G]

I agree. It makes me wonder if the pro-2A camp is hurting itself by focusing so ardently on subjugation?

That's what I keep saying, over and over. The 2A camp lives in a fantasy world of choir preachers, inventing stories of an enemy which doesn't exist.

It is commonplace psychology - if your enemies don't seem obviously bad enough to hate, invent characteristics that are hateful. "The Hun", "Baby killers", etc.