[Charleo0192]

This came to mind after reading a few threads: Do you think most politicians who push for more and more gun control believe in what they are pushing for? Or do you think they do it for gain, whether it be money, power, or something else?

I just go over the logic in my head and for the life of me I have a hard time understanding why some people are so adamant about more and more gun control.

[Murphy4570]

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

[hso]

It doesn't matter whether they believe in it or not, the results are the same.

Do you care whether the guy that carves your heart out is doing it because he believes that it will make you a messenger to the gods or not? The important thing is that he's cutting your heart out. Same/Same with anti politicians.

[Archie]

To put a fine edge on it, all Democrat politicians are gun control proponents. Some are rabid 'no-guns-at-all' types like Charles Schumer and there are some that are very 'moderate' and would allow shotguns for bird hunting during hunting season with a proper license. Very few Democrat politicians - none of whom I am aware - would allow private citizens to carry a firearm without government supervision.

Oh, Gabriella Giffords of Arizona is the one exception. She has (had?) a concealed weapons permit and was supportive of Second Amendment rights up until that hairball shot her in January of this year. I haven't heard of any changes, but who knows?

Republican politicians range from 'no-guns-at-all' types like Olympia Snow to some who are just short of 'anything goes'. Most are at least nominally pro gun ownership.

However, all politicians are 'dealers'. They will 'make a deal for the greater good'. Sadly, private firearms ownership is not a priority for most politicians of any stripe. Democrats will go along with some loosening in return for higher taxes and social programs. Republicans will go along with some tightening for job creation and fund cutting. That's the scary part.

In large, gun owners (nationally, not individual states) are better off from a law and case law basis than anytime in the past twenty years or so. However, I'm just wondering how tightly the Republicans - who are the ones who will hold the gun control line if anyone does - will hold in order to get economic reform and financial responsibility back in government.

I know this will upset some folks, but a vote for just about any Democrat is a vote for gun control. A vote for a Republican must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

[sig220mw]

Senator Lloyd Bentsen from Texas (now deceased) was a conservative democrat and pro gun for several years. Then he got picked to be a vice presidential candidate for Michael Dukakis in 1988. After that he toed the party line and became anti gun but continued to say that he was pro. He had always opposed the Brady bill that is until Bill Clinton buddied up to him in the early 90s and he found out he was going to be nominated as secretary of the treasury. He then voted for the Brady bill. His behavior and the behavior of several other democrats made up my mind for me. I will not send a democrat to Washington. On the state, county or local level I will vote for the person rather than the party. Not on the federal level though. Once they go up there they forget where they came from and do what the leadership and the New York Times says that they should do.

It's about power and plum appointments and friendly television and newspaper interviews. Plus lobby money.

[Ringolevio]

Archie:
To put a fine edge on it, all Democrat politicians are gun control proponents. Some are rabid 'no-guns-at-all' types like Charles Schumer

As it happens, Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY), the most vociferous advocate of gun control (and the "Fairness Doctrine"), is among the privileged few to be licensed (under NY's highly-restrictive Sullivan Law) to carry a concealed handgun in New York; can you say "elitism and blatant hypocrisy", Boys and Girls? "Chuckie" would like for U.S. citizens to be defenseless; not him, but the rest of us.

Read what some other "politicians" had to say about gun control:

Vladimir Lenin (the man who coined the phrase "useful idiots" that so aptly describes most liberals) said,
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."

Adolf Hitler chimed in on the topic as well:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

Patrick Henry (he of "Give me Liberty or give me Death!") perhaps said it most succinctly:
"What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Let me wrap this up with a quote that is remarkable not so much for what it says (which is just elementary common sense) but for who said it:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
The quote above was uttered, in 2001, by a man whose name is almost synonymous with non-violence -- the Dalai Lama!

[JustinJ]

To put a fine edge on it, all Democrat politicians are gun control proponents.

I'll assume you are just completely misinformed and not intentionally lying but that is simply not true.

[lowerunit411]

Politicians of all stripes are intrested in one thing and one thing only....being elected or reelected. principle seems to have no place in politics. its a cake walk career that make millionaires out of all of them.

[Nushif]

To put a fine edge on it, all Democrat politicians are gun control proponents.

Sure. Let's just keep repeating partisan politics, instead of construction a meaningful argument that holds water. Also, check up on who introduced the ban on full autos.

This is IMHO the better quote:

Politicians of all stripes are intrested in one thing and one thing only....being elected or reelected.

This, people. Politics in most places, but especially here is a horse and pony show consisting of soundbites, personal attacks and talking points with no real bearing on what is actually going to happen.
Watch the news, any news one of these days and tell me they're actually presenting any kind of argument in its completion. The rule is misrepresentation lying by omission and subterfuge, as well as semantical cherry-picking. And don't tell me FOX news is excluded here.

[Sam1911]

Also, check up on who introduced the ban on full autos.
Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.)

Or did you mean Homer Cummings who introduced the NFA back in '34, after serving as head of the DNC?

This thread has probably gone right over the edge all ready, but if it can possibly continue, STOP with the Dem-vs.-Repub. stuff and answer the question asked.

"Do you think most politicians who push for more and more gun control believe in what they are pushing for? Or do you think they do it for gain, whether it be money, power, or something else?"

[zfk55]

I hope this is OnT? I think it is. If not enough, please remove it.

Live in NYC? It now appears that Hizzonor Mayor Bloomberg wants to attatch revocation of your second amendments rights for traffic violations.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/21075-nra.html

[Standing Wolf]

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

Amen, Murphy4570, and Marxists aren't afraid of my guns, but me.

The sad sorry simple truth of the matter is we have one party, the Statist party, with two faces, the Republicrats and the Democans.

Professional politicians uphold exactly one principle: larger, stronger, and richer government, which directly translates into reelection and more power for themselves. They'll say or do anything in defense of their sacred principle. If that means telling us they're strong supporters of the Second Amendment, they'll say whatever they think we want to hear. If that means voting for Marxist infringements, they'll vote for them.

I think sometimes we'd get genuine representation by dropping voting and choosing representatives the same way we choose members of juries.

[skoro]

Do you think most politicians who push for more and more gun control believe in what they are pushing for? Or do you think they do it for gain, whether it be money, power, or something else?

I think most politicians who push gun control come from high crime areas. Their constituents are probably under the mistaken impression that disarming the public will decrease gun-related crime.

[CoRoMo]

This, and most all arguments like this, always boil down to whether or not the decision maker is stupid or evil.

If they have no clue as to the results of their ideology, they are simply ignorant. Okay, fine, whatever.

But if they know good and well that crime rates will see no impact after their agenda is in place, they are an absolutely despicable person that is interested in nothing more than power.

[Nushif]

Not to mention that as a politician you rarely ever heard the good news.

Who ever wrote their senator saying: "Hey! Love what you're doing!"

We don't exactly reinforce the good habits of these guys, we just punish the bad ones. Talk about avoidance goals.

[JustinJ]

The fact is politicians, and many others for that matter, who support gun control generally do so because they have different values and hold different opinions on what various legislation will accomplish. Wrong or right, they believe gun deaths can be reduced by legislation so consider such laws justifiable because they see civilian ownership of certain guns as having no real benefit to society. When they say, "nobody needs a so and so..." they are trying to make the point that "so and so" has no benefit so should be restricted to reduce certain crimes. Now, like on all issues there are plenty of politicians who simply take which ever position they feel is self serving but for the large part i believe gun control advocates do truly believe more restrictions are in the interest of the greater good. While i completely disagree with them I think it wrong to assign all these nefarious motives and look for any excuse to demonize them. Not only is it wrong to misrepresent others it is also counter productive. That's not to say there are not bad people on the gun control side who dont lie and commit under handed acts to try and get there way but those can be found on all sides of all issues.

[Jeff H]

"Do you think most politicians who push for more and more gun control believe in what they are pushing for? Or do you think they do it for gain, whether it be money, power, or something else?"

I think most politicians will generally vote with their party on most issues. Guns being only one of many issues politicians face. Lets face it, the parties are bought and paid for by the special interest groups.

This isn't always the case though, the NRA does endorse democrats from time to time. The Ohio Governor last term carried the NRA endorsement and was a reasonable supporter or the 2nd amendment, but he was a Democrat and was voted out of office because he was an idiot for many other reasons.

[SunnySlopes]

Career politicians have no core beliefs. They espouse whatever doctrines or philosophy they think their constituents want to hear. They're not unlike prostitutes who lie down for a buck.

Look at the latest surge in pro gun candidates. In both parties. Do you think they'd do that if Americans hadn't gone nuts buying guns the last few years?

All they care about is being on the public dole. It prevents them having to find work.

[Psa1m144]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

[Owen Sparks]

Before this thread gets closed for becoming political I would like to remind everyone that all gun laws are the direct result of politics.

You may not be interested in politics but politics may be very interested in your guns.

[eye5600]

I think a lot of people, including politicians, hold opinions that they can't justify in any real sense. Most politicians don't talk about gun control very much, and they don't have considered opinions on gun control. They just adopt the prevailing opinions of the group they run with.

There are lots of opinions or beliefs that you can't say out loud and still be elected in the US. You can't say you're an atheist, or that the cops aren't "the finest", or the firefighters aren't "the bravest", or that any member of the military isn't worth thanking for his service, or that America isn't the greatest country on earth. Not that these things aren't true, but that the matter isn't open for examination.

Here are a couple examples. 1) Fox News was all over Obama for not mentioning God in his Turkey-pardoning Thanksgiving Day talk. (Other presidents have omitted any reference to the Diety in the past.) 2) There was a big stir in political ads because someone said, or was quoted as saying, "Americans were lazy" about something or other. Well, maybe someone was. Maybe they took that "greatest country on earth" too seriously and stopped trying for a while. But you can't say so.

[ATBackPackin]

Politicians of all stripes are intrested in one thing and one thing only....being elected or reelected. principle seems to have no place in politics. its a cake walk career that make millionaires out of all of them.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[alsaqr]

The so called "assault weapons ban" passed the US house by a vote of 216-215. Two Republican house members changed their minds and voted for the AWB when Ronald Reagan made his appeal in favor of the ban. The retiring house minority leader voted for the bill; putting it over the top.

76 house Democrats voted against the AWB and 38 Republicans voted in favor.

[Zeke/PA]

It's my belief that the Second Amendment issue is the most volitile and emotional issue that a politician of today has to deal with.
Politicians FEAR it as elections have been decided because of it.
The Gun Control Advocates, I'm certain, have as their PRIMARY goal, TOTAL dis-armament as every criminal misuse of guns is covered by present legislation which is not enforced as it should be.
How much more"control" is needed?

[JustinJ]

It's my belief that the Second Amendment issue is the most volitile and emotional issue that a politician of today has to deal with.

It certainly is an issue that can get people to the polls but i wouldnt say that it elicits near the emotional response of other issues such as abortion. I don't recally anybody bombing a gun shop.

Politicians FEAR it as elections have been decided because of it.

Gun Rights is unfortunately one of those wedge issues that politicians also like to use to divide people to their advantage.

The Gun Control Advocates, I'm certain, have as their PRIMARY goal, TOTAL dis-armament as every criminal misuse of guns is covered by present legislation which is not enforced as it should be.

Although convenient such a black and white view of things is way too simplistic and not accurate. Like all issues there are wide ranges of views on the topic with all sorts of varying degrees. People on here, for example, often argue about wether or not open carry should be legal. A good analogy is how many people who are pro-choice believe late term abortions should be illegal and others who are pro-life believe abortion is okay in cases of rape or to save a mother's life. Some pro-lifers also believe the morning after pill is okay and others believe not. However we've all been pretty much convinced there are only two groups, us against them. Classifying people into one category or the other is an effective way for a politician to polarize and convince americans that he is one of us while the opposing candidate is one of them.

I'm not saying that there aren't candidates who would like to outlaw guns completely. However the majority lack such extreme views with some supporting additional restrictions but nothing close to a complete ban. This can be seen by the NRA voters guide that they provide during elections which give candidates letter grades besed on their voting history and comments. There are generally numerous candidates that receive B, C and D as opposed to just A or F.

[hermannr]

It is very simple. Some polititions believe in a "redistrabution of wealth" from those that earn it, to those that cannot or will not work to earn, it will garner them more votes. This is forceably done through the governments ability to tax it's citizens.

Taken to the extreme, those that object, and have not protected their wealth by trusts set up under law specifically passed to protect that wealth, may just rebell. Think of all the changes in the 30's? Why was there a $200 tax on owning full auto weapons? $200 was a huge sum in 1934. It was specifically their to keep those military style weapons away from middle america that was getting the brunt of tax increases. If FDR thought he could get away with it, he would have confascated all firearms, just like Hitler did. Only his wealthy protected supporters would still have access to firearms or as actually happened, Gold.

[Justin]

In the case of some, it's a purely ideological crusade resulting from direct experience with a traumatic event. Both Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy are rabidly anti-gun as a result of people in their lives being murdered with firearms. In the case of Feinstein, it was San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, and in the case of Carolyn McCarthy, it was the death of her husband in the Long Island train mass shooting.

For others, like Barbara Boxer or Chuck Schumer, it's more of a political default due to the prevailing local cultures they serve, or political avarice. In Schumer's case, I think part of his ardent support of gun control is a result of his tremendously outsized ego, and a deep-seated psychological need on his part to appear like he's David versus the NRA's Goliath.

[P5 Guy]

Is armed citizens. I have never thought any politician could be pro-gun, some are just less anti-gun.
GCA1968 became law directly because of political assassinations.
A politician can be voted out of office and retain the privileges that s/he had in office and increased income on top of that. An assassinated politician doesn't get any of that and don't be fooled they are all to aware of that.
I think it was Chairman Mao that said all government get it's strength from the barrel of a gun.

[bergmen]

In the case of some, it's a purely ideological crusade resulting from direct experience with a traumatic event. Both Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy are rabidly anti-gun as a result of people in their lives being murdered with firearms. In the case of Feinstein, it was San Francisco Mayor Harvey Milk, and in the case of Carolyn McCarthy, it was the death of her husband in the Long Island train mass shooting.

For others, like Barbara Boxer or Chuck Schumer, it's more of a political default due to the prevailing local cultures they serve, or political avarice. In Schumer's case, I think part of his ardent support of gun control is a result of his tremendously outsized ego, and a deep-seated psychological need on his part to appear like he's David versus the NRA's Goliath.

It was San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk murdered in 1978.

Dan

[97guns]

hows this for total controll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&feature=youtu.be

[lowerunit411]

its about pandering to your constituancy and being reelected...nothing more

[Justin]

Dan, thank you for the correction. :o

[BobTheTomato]

Career politicians have no core beliefs. They espouse whatever doctrines or philosophy they think their constituents want to hear.

It is all about pandering to the people who will vote you into office. Kirsten Gillibrand was a great example of this. She was pro gun when she was in a rural district in New York. Once in the US Senate she "saw the light" and how dangerous guns were. The only reason for it was that she knew she would need to get reelected and did not want to face a challange from inside the party. Poloticans are well protected and can get special favors. The idea of protection is not a problem when you have guards paid for by the tax payer.

[Jeff H]

hows this for total controll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T6...ature=youtu.be


What the heck is this?!?

[Zeke/PA]

JustinJ,
My viewpoints are " simplistic and black and white" because I've learned , over the years to distrust Politicians in general.
They themselves "complicate" matters when they try to apease different viewpoints, better known as "speaking out of both sides of ones mouth".
"polarize and convince americans"?
The politicos certainly do a good job of that as evidenced by the current state of the U.S. economy.
Hopefully, the complacent mindset of Americans is behind us and we can use the Polling place to start over.