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

[Deanimator]

USSC Justices cannot abolish the 2A. Buts let's say they effectively do. Do you really think the US Gov't has the resolve and the resources to begin going door to door? Do you honestly believe that most Americans would stand for that?

The government put a huge slice of an entire ethnic group into racial concentration camps in 1942.

 

[barnbwt]

Because I realize that confiscating guns is a world away from mandating universal background checks.

Exactly how far away from confiscation are we now, in your opinion? How much closer is UBCs? Do you believe it is any closer? What additional steps do you believe are required to get from here to there, with or without UBCs?

This is the kind of strategic thinking that is missing from people who support gun control because it "seemed like a good idea at the time." Any step closer to the end game is a loss for us, it cannot be argued otherwise; so in what way are UBCs not a step closer to the end of civilian gun ownership? Since they don't impact crime, why have them, otherwise?

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

And who are you quoting? Quote a person, not a fever dream.

In other words you couldn't refute what was said.

 

[Kendal Black]

What was the purpose of the Second Amendment? It was in some part to prevent government overreach of the kind you see when peasants are helpless to defend themselves. So it is sensible to say efforts against the right to bear arms lead toward oppression.

Yet I do not think every gun control supporter sees that. He wants safer streets, and is convinced the newest restriction leads to the safety he wants, not to outcomes he does not want, for himself least of all.

So we're kind of talking at cross purposes when we look at motives when what we mean is outcomes. Kipling had it nailed back in 1919:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

The people we need to reach are the ones who cling to the idea that government is always a beneficent force for human betterment. We could do more to point out that the problem is not so much the guns but people who have no heart for their neighbors.

I know good-hearted and supposedly educated people who were surprised when I pointed out countries with higher gun violence rates than the U.S. Somehow they had bought the pravda that we are the worst. Some of those countries have stricter gun laws than ours but--go figure--criminals there don't follow the law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

For the endgame, yes; but obnoxious protests are actually a *very* useful tool for forcing authorities to address a minority group....

Really? you have some evidence to support that? How about some examples? Exactly what "obnoxious" protests are you talking about? How about posting some links to news articles documenting the obnoxious protests you're talking about.

Among other things, the RKBA community consistently fails to understand in any depth the Civil Rights Movement, how it worked, why it worked, and how its lessons can and can not be useful for the advancement of our interests. But --

• During the Civil Rights Movement many Whites came to care about the plight of the Blacks, and much of the focus was to make Whites understand and care. The successes of non-Whites on the social and legislative fronts depended on Whites seeing non-Whites as oppressed. How many non-gun owners think gun owners are oppressed?
  
  
• The acts of civil disobedience, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.
  
  
• During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.
  
  
• On the other hand how has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?
  
  
  • Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement?
    
    
  • Where are the editorials in the New York Times lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice?
    
    
  • Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses?
    
    
  • Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?
    
    
  • A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
  
  
• Let's look at the comparison with the Civil Rights Movement graphically. In the days of the Civil Rights Movement:
  
  
  • White folks cared in 1960 when U. S. Marshals had to escort a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    
    
  • White folks cared in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.
    
    
  • White folks cared in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville.
    
    
  • And White folks cared about --
    
    
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
    
    
  • On the other hand, what do non-gun owners (and many gun owners) think about:
    
    
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 

 

[entropy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by entropy
Precisely. I urge everyone reading this thread to read Edward Gibbons' "The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire..."

That's extremely good advice. The problem I see is that most gun enthusiasts I know would never make the investment to read Gibbon's landmark work.

The only investment needed is time; it's available online free, and by most libraries digitally for free. You don't need to read the whole thing either, though the time is well invested. The parallels to what's happening now are apparent throughout the book. I try to re-read it every other year. It becomes more timely each read through....

 

[phil dirt]

We can argue the original point of this subject matter until the cows come home, but if Hillary gets elected she will appoint a whole bunch of anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Justices to the Supreme Court, and then she, or anybody who follows, as Commander-in-Chief, can just issue the executive orders. The United States Military and Homeland Security, no doubt, will then be Constitutionally duty bound to obey those orders. All it will take is someone like Hillary to set all that in motion. Does anybody think for a minute that the lame duck Obama, if he had one more socialist on the Supreme Court, wouldn't declare all privately owned guns to be contraband and subject to confiscation? It might be an incremental process, but the end result would still be Obama and Hillary's dream come true.

I hope gun owners, in mass, will turn out to oppose this horrible woman. But, if the future is like the past, I won't hold my breath. How many gun owners stayed home, based upon some delusional principle, rather than vote against a known anti-Second Amendment, gun hater, like Obama? I am afraid for our Constitutional rights and thus our country's future if Hillary is elected.

 

[HetchHetchy]

So Susan B Anthony was just a political opportunist who had no desire to make a mark on history, or MLK for that matter, or Mandela, Castro, Mussolini, Lenin, Mao , or Hitler? Just out for a quick grift before the reaper came calling? Yes, these names are arranged on a spectrum from 'saint' to 'devil,' with a giant leap between MLK and Mandela

Politicians --especially prominent or accomplished ones -- LOVE their legacies more than life itself, which is why so many end up reaping the whirlwind. But notice how many of them get whole sections devoted to them in the history books, good or bad

So you're going to cherry-pick 7 politicos from history (only one an American) who took control of countries in far different shape than the US and use them as a gauge for all of today's US politicians? Really?

Gun control's only been a 'thing' of any significance since 1934, and yet it's made steady gains ever since then until now. It's *been* on the books for several generations, and it's already had disarming effects --buy any new machineguns, lately? They're scarcely different from your semi-autos, yet they cost 10-20 times more and from an ever-shrinking supply. When has gun control EVER been a benefit to anyone in the short term (well, without kickbacks from Bloomberg or Tammany Hall being involved)?

Actually no, it has not made "steady gains." There was little gain from 1934 to 1968. There was very little from 1968 to 1989. Even then much of the US didn't feel any real gun control until the federal AWB in 1994, which was largely precipitated by the Cleveland School shooting of 1989. "Gains" in gun control in the US tend to be made in batches following a typically horrific, well publicized incident.

You seriously think that because the ultimate gun control dream cannot be realized in a single lifetime (that said, see England or Germany or Meiji Japan) that no one is pursuing it? Democrats have been agitating for socialized healthcare since the New Deal with FDR, and are just now closing in on the end game

TCB

That's not what I said nor implied. I said that politicians aren't typically driven by things that won't personally benefit them. I think most ardent anti-gun politicos (including the Clintons) would become pro-gun in a heartbeat if that best served their focus of getting elected.

 

[HetchHetchy]

We can argue the original point of this subject matter until the cows come home, but if Hillary gets elected she will appoint a whole bunch of anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment Justices to the Supreme Court, and then she, or anybody who follows, as Commander-in-Chief, can just issue the executive orders. The United States Military and Homeland Security, no doubt, will then be Constitutionally duty bound to obey those orders. All it will take is someone like Hillary to set all that in motion. Does anybody think for a minute that the lame duck Obama, if he had one more socialist on the Supreme Court, wouldn't declare all privately owned guns to be contraband and subject to confiscation? It might be an incremental process, but the end result would still be Obama and Hillary's dream come true.

I hope gun owners, in mass, will turn out to oppose this horrible woman. But, if the future is like the past, I won't hold my breath. How many gun owners stayed home, based upon some delusional principal, rather than vote against a known anti-Second Amendment, gun hater, like Obama? I am afraid for our Constitutional rights and thus our country's future if Hillary is elected.

No, not if they contravene the 2A.

I agree with you about gun owners. Many I know don't vote at all. Those that do often throw away their vote in "protest." Sad, sad situation. Talk to them though and by golly they'll be ready as riflemen should things become truly grim -- a claim I definitely doubt.

 

[barnbwt]

Guns have been restricted before, during and after the drafting of the BoR. Everyone knows that the language of 2A doesn't apply to prisoners and never did, but no one in the "shall not be infringed" camp can explain that. Instead they cling to a fantasy that never existed, and that's why they are extremists who are out of touch with reality, fighting a war they lost two centuries ago.

Just an FYI, the 'prisoners' strawman is a dead giveaway --that's boilerplate talking points I've seen many other places. It made no sense then because the RKBA and other rights were removed with Due Process in accordance with other amendments as intended, it makes no sense when you say it. Even still, there's lots of contradictions between the law as we aspire to abide by it and the law as it is; case in point the Japanese Internment mentioned, as well as the notorious selective enforcement of gun laws in Jim Crow or other areas even after the 14th Amendment (or even before it, for that matter). Just because an injustice persists long enough, even from the starting point, does not make it transmute into justice after enough time. We have more than enough precedent in western human history to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act if that were the case

Have I explained it to your liking?

Almost no one even understands what gun control is, let alone how to fight it.

Another tell. Gun owners, who you know, actually have to abide by this insane minefield of rules and regulations to stay out of the pin, are extremely aware of 'what gun control is,' and how illogical & baseless & poorly written the vast majority is. I've found one of the most effective methods to sway the ignorant or 'undecided' to start down our path is to tell them the truth about the gun laws the anti's have erected; exactly what they say you must do to remain free. Nonsensical rules on silencers, barrel lengths, forward grips, cross-state transfers, bore sizes, foreign made parts, bans on meaningless features, ignorant bans on hollowpoints as being 'armor piercing,' bans on armor piercing ammo that aren't based on the ability to pierce armor --the list is a long, and very stupid one. If I can hold a person's interest long enough (usually can if I sprinkle it out over a range trip) they are sincerely questioning gun laws by the end of the day. Stuff about the Founders and Federalist papers can come later, lots later; the brass tacks of gun control are enough to sour anyone's appetite.

Instead they cling to a fantasy that never existed, and that's why they are extremists who are out of touch with reality, fighting a war they lost two centuries ago.

The fantasy where guns needed no serial numbers, had no registration, could be mailed over economical modes of transport, could be carried on or about one's person in public (usually openly), had no restriction on length, bore diameter, or the ability to fire automatically, and required no license to manufacture or market. That fantasy persisted for the first 158 years of our nation (not counting the decades if not centuries before the Revolution). All that mattered was whether you were reckless or hurt people with your guns (or whether you hid them on your person as this was assumed to be for unsavory purposes). Rules on powder storage existed because of the physical realities of black powder in an era of oil lamps and densely packed wood structures; not political whims.

In fact, it was a crack down on imported Brown Bess muskets issued to the British Regulars that led to a boom in domestic manufacture of rifled muskets for militia, a crackdown on powder specifically sparked the firefight that began the revolution.

Your "two centuries" crack is, I assume, another ignorant assumption about the Civil War. The fact is, federal gun control did not exist until the turn of the 20th century, and was relegated to enclaves of poorly or unrepresented minorities in the areas it did exist on a local level. Gun Control is the aberration, that had no place in our system as originally designed, and only came into being as part of progressive reforms along with such beauties as eugenics & forced sterilization, insane asylums & lobotomy, 'reformative' prisons where rape is used as a tool for penance, and Alcohol Prohibition, the very spit of "seemed like a good idea at the time."

Look up Big Tim Sullivan to see what kind of heroes paved the way for future gun control holy rollers. A more disgusting human being has never existed.

TCB

 

[HetchHetchy]

The only investment needed is time; it's available online free, and by most libraries digitally for free. You don't need to read the whole thing either, though the time is well invested. The parallels to what's happening now are apparent throughout the book. I try to re-read it every other year. It becomes more timely each read through....

It's neither a light nor a short read. I don't think many will make the effort (is that a more definitive word) read it.

Here's a free recorded version by LibriVox (which typically foes a good job): https://librivox.org/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-vol-i-by-edward-gibbon/

 

[entropy]

Do you really believe that's the case here in the US? No one born today will ever see complete (or even near complete) disarmament of the USA for some very practical reasons in their lifetimes. Given that, do you honestly believe that today's politicos are actually laying the groundwork for future politicos a century or more down the road?

The USA isn't the Ottoman Empire of 1911, China of 1935 or Germany of the 1938. It would take generations (if ever) to actually disarm the US. I think today's politicos are focused on getting (re)elected and fattening their bank accounts and not about facilitating things (disarmament and subjugation) that they'll never benefit from.

I also believe that almost all politicians do what's best for themselves. If being ardently pro-gun (as thousands of politicos are in the US) was Clinton's best chance for the White House, I have no doubt she would flip in a heartbeat.

Yes, I do believe it. The first to do so openly was Woodrow Wilson, the first "Progressive President. (Though some would argue TR was. In some ways he was, but not concerning the 2nd Amendment.) EVERY Democratic President since, and a good portion of the Republican ones, have been either overtly or covertly anti 2A. The Republican ones are more like Julius Ceasar, trying to preserve the 'illusion' of a self-determining Republic, whereas the Democrats are Octavian Ceasar Augustus, and want to outright declare it dead.

 

[barnbwt]

Really? you have some evidence to support that? How about some examples? Exactly what "obnoxious" protests are you talking about? How about posting some links to news articles documenting the obnoxious protests you're talking about.

So you're going to cherry-pick 7 politicos from history (only one an American) who took control of countries in far different shape than the US and use them as a gauge for all of today's US politicians? Really?

"Only seven." Nice; you're starting to sound like RX, now. Why not? Are they not human? Are you suggesting they are inherently different in motivation or ambition from our own politicians? Fine; James K Polk and his Manifest Destiny was a pretty far-sighted notion. Lincoln & the Homestead Act was as well. Then you have Teddy Roosevelt and the beginnings of a generations-long period of foreign adventure & empire. Yup, none of them saw beyond the eight or so years they resided in the Big Chair

My point was not an exhaustive list of all far-sighted leaders, btw, but to illustrate how "far sighted leader" is both incredibly common, and means a *whole* lot of things, and more bad than good absent very specific circumstances (like our highly restrained form of government)

Actually no, it has not made "steady gains." There was little gain from 1934 to 1968. There was very little from 1968 to 1989. Even then much of the US didn't feel any real gun control until the federal AWB in 1994, which was largely precipitated by the Cleveland School shooting of 1989. "Gains" in gun control in the US tend to be made in batches following a typically horrific, well publicized incident.

The big gains you hear about, but I'll bet you aren't aware of all the regulations and local laws that were accumulating all the while. The gains between the big laws that get passed were typically judicial in nature, too, since each new law brought about a whole lot of legitimate questions about "how the heck is this law constitutional?" that had to be slapped together before proceeding to the next phase when the moment was right. Besides, the way the Overton Window or Boiling Frog or whatever analogy works, treading water without giving up any gains *is* a gain, politically; just look at all the fools who now insist gun control has always been the way it is in American history & is therefore justified, simply because it's been on the books for nearly a century. The Anti's have become more ensconced and organized during this period.

No, not if they [illegal orders] contravene the 2A.

Well, to quote Trump (God this election sucks) "I'll make them obey!" so who knows what'll happen in such a constitutional crisis :rolleyes (well, I have an idea, since we've ignored the last several that have reared their heads and accepted a 'new normal' of judicial fiat and unaccountable politicians)

I said that politicians aren't typically driven by things that won't personally benefit them. I think most ardent anti-gun politicos (including the Clintons) would become pro-gun in a heartbeat if that best served their focus of getting elected.

Well yeah, but for those that do get elected --pro or anti gun-- they want to then leave their mark so their time in office meant something. Your name in the history books is most definitely a personal benefit to the ego, and arguably the reason ANYONE runs for president. The less ambitious guys who are just hangers-on do have no compunctions about switching sides when it's convenient (though they are represented far more heavily on the authoritarian side, which makes sense)

TCB

 

[Warp]

I see I voted with the majority, and big.

I'm not reading all 7 pages, but will say



1. I believe the subjugation is the primary reason for the push, and voted as such

2. I believe that many ignorant voters are primary reason pushes succeed when and where they do. But it isn't just voter ignorance, it is intentionally misled and deceived voters.

 

[RX-79G]

In other words you couldn't refute what was said.

The only person who said it was you. That makes you the racist, since you couldn't name a human being who said it.

 

[barnbwt]

And now we're racists for recognizing the bigoted assumptions of our opposition; yet another tell

From the last page, a prominent anti-gunner --The, prominent anti-gunner-- declaring that his policies must focus primarily on disarming young black/minority men in the cities. Totally coincidence that the status quo of gun laws is focused on --you guessed it-- young black men in the inner cities. Pretty sure this'd be considered 'racist' in today's exaggeration of the term if I said it, but I'm sure you'll give Bloomberg a pass for not using a slur.

Uh, Bloomberg, though naturally not in so few words;

“It’s controversial but, first thing is all of your, 95 percent, 95 percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed.”

Please, go on and tell us how this doesn't count, though . What's really funny, is there is a sizeable contingent of 'racist' gun rights folks who really wish legal guns & helpful self defense laws could make their way into these urban areas, since it would likely resolve at least some measure of the predation (I've seen several studies which conclude that a shockingly tiny number of individuals --think a couple dozen-- are responsible for the difference between a ghetto hellhole with leading murder rates, and a poor but livable neighborhood; if they are confronted only 5% of the time with lethal force when they do violent wrong, those dozens will rapidly dwindle to a handful of ruffians. Unfortunately, such improvement bodes poorly for federal and charity aid otherwise laundered through the local government)

 

[RX-79G]

Just an FYI, the 'prisoners' strawman is a dead giveaway --that's boilerplate talking points I've seen many other places. It made no sense then because the RKBA and other rights were removed with Due Process in accordance with other amendments as intended, it makes no sense when you say it.

Have I explained it to your liking?




Your "two centuries" crack is, I assume, another ignorant assumption about the Civil War.
TCB

Due process cannot remove a Right. Where did you get that idea? Prisoners are disarmed in accordance with regular laws, not by part of the Constitution. Which means that regular law making can, does and always has regulated 2A. Regulation is not the same as infringement.

The Civil War was 200 years ago?

 

[RX-79G]

And now we're racists for recognizing the bigoted assumptions of our opposition; yet another tell

From the last page, a prominent anti-gunner --The, prominent anti-gunner-- declaring that his policies must focus primarily on disarming young black/minority men in the cities. Totally coincidence that the status quo of gun laws is focused on --you guessed it-- young black men in the inner cities. Pretty sure this'd be considered 'racist' in today's exaggeration of the term if I said it, but I'm sure you'll give Bloomberg a pass for not using a slur.

Bloomberg stated an accurate statistic. Where is the racism?

 

[toivo]

I voted for "politicos want to look like they're doing something." They want the electorate to believe that there are easy solutions to social problems like criminal violence. When each gun control measure fails to produce the desired result, they can just blame the NRA and propose more laws.

It's really a win-win-win for liberal politicians. They get to look good to their base, they get to piss off conservatives, and ultimately they get to disarm the public.

I think the last one isn't their primary motivation, though. They don't have to subjugate the populace; we're already subjugated.

 

[Ironicaintit]

The people we need to reach are the ones who cling to the idea that government is always a beneficent force for human betterment. We could do more to point out that the problem is not so much the guns but people who have no heart for their neighbors.

Excellent! this is what I try to do.
It doesn't really help the political push, but a lot of individuals can be salvaged still.
I'm going to memorize that Kipling quote

 

[Walkalong]

Well, since we are now calling other posters racist, it's time to stop. An interesting discussion though.