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

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

  • The politicos truly believe that controlling guns will violent reduce crime.

    Votes: 7 2.9%

  • The politicos want to be able to show their supporters they are "doing something."

    Votes: 27 11.2%

  • Pressure from law enforcement organizations/unions.

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • International pressures from the UN, etc.

    Votes: 3 1.2%

  • Gun control is an emotional wedge issue. It's a way to herd and corral voters and to get elected.

    Votes: 30 12.4%

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

    Votes: 138 57.3%

  • Many voters are ignorant and afraid of guns. They just want them gone.

    Votes: 17 7.1%

  • Like abortion, support for increased gun control has simply been institutionalized in some circles.

    Votes: 6 2.5%

  • Gun control is largely driven by non-profits out to turn a buck for themselves.

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Voters view pro-2A groups as corrupt/old/male/white/fat/etc. and wish to oppose them.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Voters equate guns to bad people and feel eliminating guns will eliminate the bad people.

    Votes: 11 4.6%
  • Total voters
    241
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
barnbwt said:
I hold out hope there is such an argument, and there are some that come close (the realpolitik ones by nihilists are somewhat hard to refute rhetorically), but I haven't found one that withstood close examination in my eyes. I've tried. I used to be something of an anti-gunner myself, self-righteous hypocritical illusions of Utopia and everything. All of them founded in ignorance, and riddled with contradiction.

TCB
Click to expand...
My personal experience of the gun control movement parallels my personal experience of the Holocaust denial/revision movement.

Both consist of a pyramidal structure.

At the top are a small cadre of grifters who seek power, influence and the money of the malicious and gullible.

Beneath them is a layer of accomplices and henchmen who troll for the gullible and malicious. They trail behind them a web of lies like a drift net.

At the bottom are the mass of ignorant and or evil marks who've been ensnared by the grift. Their "donations" fund the slimy apparatus operating above them.

In both cases, their massive con jobs played on the gullible to achieve evil ends.
 
barnbwt said:
To be fair, it is basically the tomiest of tomes ;)

THR should have a reading list, unless there's a hidden sticky for one already :)
Click to expand...

It's quite a read, that's for sure. But it's just the sort of mental exercise that prepares one for life.

THR should have a reading list...
 
barnbwt said:
Weren't some of the earliest gun laws (and Prohibition laws, and poll restrictions, etc) targeted against Irish immigrants in the big northern states? Also, what is possibly more authoritarian than a slave holder? :scrutiny:
Click to expand...
The earliest targets of gun control were Indians, followed by Blacks.

After that, every new influx of disfavored minorities was the target of disarmament campaigns by the extant power structure, be they Irish, Italians, Chinese or Jews.
 
It's a few of those. Primarily an emotional wedge aimed at election. It's something that they can scream and yell and be passionate about for the sake of the greater good (on either side) then blame others when it doesn't happen.

Aside from that, the fewer guns there are the less resistance the citizens can put up to tyrannical idiocy. Even slight power shifts to the govt benefits the govt and screws the citizens a little bit with each step. It's a power grab even though it's a small grab each time.
 
I went with:

Voters equate guns to bad people and feel eliminating guns will eliminate the bad people.

because the OP asked the "primary" reason. I do agree that a lot of these are true though.
 
phil dirt said:
Hillary and Obama are striving for a one party political system in which the so called Progressives, (I call them Communists) control everything. The first thing any Progressive/Communist wants is to disarm all opposition. Gun owners had best vote for their gun rights in November or be prepared for what comes next.
Click to expand...

And it would take generations (if ever) to truly disarm the USA. Do you honestly believe the Clintons care what's going to happen many decades down the road? I don't. I think their focus is on wielding power in the here and now largely to grow their foundation's endowment and their own bank accounts.
 
HetchHetchy said:
And it would take generations (if ever) to truly disarm the USA. Do you honestly believe the Clintons care what's going to happen many decades down the road? I don't. I think their focus is on wielding power in the here and now largely to grow their foundation's endowment and their own bank accounts.
Click to expand...
Well, the logic of it aside, he's clearly in the majority on this gun board.

As a political group, we are so screwed if the overwhelming majority of people in our camp are this out of touch with reality.
 
Well, the logic of it aside, he's clearly in the majority on this gun board.

As a political group, we are so screwed if the overwhelming majority of people in our camp are this out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Only more experience will make you understand that the core people driving gun control want total disarmament.

You can argue all day long that they can't do it, but you would be falling in with those (Trolls/wolves in sheep's clothing etc) who make that argument to placate us and try to get us to let our guard down.

We must be ever vigilant and fight the antis at all levels or they will indeed achieve their long term goal of no guns in the hands of citizens.

An armed populace is a free people, while an unarmed populace are merely slaves to those who rule them. Throughout history.

So, you're being a bit naive to say those of us who point out the long term goals of the antis are day dreaming.

No more compromise, ever. "Compromise" over the years has always meant they gain and we lose. We have never gotten anything when we gave something. We have always lost.

In time you will come to learn this. :)
 
RX-79G said:
Your insistence that it is a primary motivating factor is just a game you're playing. A childish distraction.
Click to expand...
Your baseless denial counts for nothing... unless anti-gun cultists have some strange compulsion to FALSELY portray THEMSELVES as bigots and their cause as driven by bigotry.

I think I'll go with observed reality over your clearly false narrative.
 
Walkalong said:
Only more experience will make you understand that the core people driving gun control want total disarmament.

You can argue all day long that they can't do it, but you would be falling in with those (Trolls/wolves in sheep's clothing etc) who make that argument to placate us and try to get us to let our guard down.

We must be ever vigilant and fight the antis at all levels or they will indeed achieve their long term goal of no guns in the hands of citizens.

An armed populace is a free people, while an unarmed populace are merely slaves to those who rule them. Throughout history.

So, you're being a bit naive to say those of us who point out the long term goals of the antis are day dreaming.

No more compromise, ever. "Compromise" over the years has always meant they gain and we lose. We have never gotten anything when we gave something. We have always lost.

In time you will come to learn this. :)
Click to expand...
Look, that is ridiculous and you're doing exactly what I'm pointing out:

Trying to remove any voice of decent within the group, thereby shrinking the group into a core of ideologically pure and utterly ineffective losers. And after the guns are banned, you guys can all agree that you did everything you could, and it wasn't your fault. Just like the South did after they lost.


2A had compromises built into it, and in denying that you might as well deny that the earth is round. Your brand of fanaticism has no place in a democratic society, and all it does is hurt all of us. Little different than what ISIS does to all of Islam, or what Fascism has to do with socialism. It's just an illogical, disprovable, faith based belief system that educated people on both sides of the aisle politely ignore.
 
Deanimator said:
Your baseless denial counts for nothing... unless anti-gun cultists have some strange compulsion to FALSELY portray THEMSELVES as bigots and their cause as driven by bigotry.

I think I'll go with observed reality over your clearly false narrative.
Click to expand...
Post an example of a commonly held racist rationale by a rank and file gun control supporter.
 
Well when they ban/ come for you guns please explain to them how ridiculous their plans are and how it would take decades for them to achieve their goals. Difficult to do or not, the goal of the gun control proponents, many of which can be described as leftists or progressives, is the total disarmament of all gun owners in the US. You can choose to believe this or not but it does not make it any less true.

We have done the compromise thing. We did it in 1934, 1968 and 1986, and other times in between. What have we gained? Other than the FOPA, nothing. In fact we lost a great deal in compromise to get that. We are not dividing anything. We are trying to unite gun owners and as far as I am concerned, anyone who advocates compromise is against us.
 
Robert spake:

We are trying to unite gun owners and as far as I am concerned, anyone who advocates compromise is against us.
Click to expand...

Ditto, and this goes for the lawyers who can go back even to British legal principles to "justify" "reasonable" controls. And who can dig up bad (repeat bad) "case law" to justify piecemeal compromises.

Just about every organism on earth has some means of self-defense... even kittens carry their concealed weapons everywhere.

Extending this personal self-defense notion to family, city, county, and nation is not beyond "reasonability," to my addled old brain. Remember the old adage about "never get between a Mama bear and her cubs?"

Well, never get between me and my fundamental natural right to carry the most effective means of self-defense available for me, my family, my city, my county, and my nation.

A rant?

Ayup.

That it is, by cracky.

My "reasonable" differs from Nancy Pelosi's "reasonable."

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

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
RX-79G said:
Post an example of a commonly held racist rationale by a rank and file gun control supporter.
Click to expand...
"I don't want to take guns away from EVERYBODY, just the <insert racial slur here>!"

Then of course you have Rudy Giuliani's quaint assertion that the 2nd Amendment means something entirely different in Brooklyn, NYC than in Brooklyn, OH.
 
Deleted as irrelevant by irrelevant and irreverent poster
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Well when they ban/ come for you guns please explain to them how ridiculous their plans are and how it would take decades for them to achieve their goals. Difficult to do or not, the goal of the gun control proponents, many of which can be described as leftists or progressives, is the total disarmament of all gun owners in the US. You can choose to believe this or not but it does not make it any less true.

We have done the compromise thing. We did it in 1934, 1968 and 1986, and other times in between. What have we gained? Other than the FOPA, nothing. In fact we lost a great deal in compromise to get that. We are not dividing anything. We are trying to unite gun owners and as far as I am concerned, anyone who advocates compromise is against us.
Click to expand...
We can no more "compromise" with the anti-gun cult than Mordechai Anilewicz could compromise with Juergen Stroop.

Their demands are maximalist.

We have two choices, and two choices ONLY:
  • submission
  • total resistance
 
Most, if not all of the regular folks who raise hell with the politicians around here are those that have suffered the loss of a loved one who ended up on the wrong end of a gun somehow, even if it's self-inflicted. Their grief is visceral, obvious to even the most detached observer. I believe members of this group were, for the most part, agnostic about guns until their loss. Now they are on a mission, misguided or not, to "make sure" this doesn't happen to another family. And, as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
Walkalong said:
Only more experience will make you understand that the core people driving gun control want total disarmament...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Robert said:
Well when they ban/ come for you guns please explain to them how ridiculous their plans are and how it would take decades for them to achieve their goals. Difficult to do or not, the goal of the gun control proponents, many of which can be described as leftists or progressives, is the total disarmament of all gun owners in the US. You can choose to believe this or not but it does not make it any less true.

We have done the compromise thing. We did it in 1934, 1968 and 1986, and other times in between. What have we gained? Other than the FOPA, nothing. In fact we lost a great deal in compromise to get that. We are not dividing anything. We are trying to unite gun owners and as far as I am concerned, anyone who advocates compromise is against us.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that Americans are going to approve the banning and confiscation of all firearms? That's not going to happen, but let's say it does. How is the gov't going to confiscate 350M guns?

How well did the Brits do in Northern Ireland?
 
Do you honestly believe that Americans are going to approve the banning and confiscation of all firearms?
Click to expand...
Americans haven't approved many things passed by Congress. If the next President appoints leftist Supreme Court Justices the 2nd Amendment is history and the courts will rule against us.
 
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?
Click to expand...
How can you not if you have been paying attention the last 40 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
  • Poll
Primary reason for owning a gun.
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
4K
Redneck with a 40
R
F
  • Locked
If you believe in gun control you must believe
Replies
5
Views
590
Redtail
R
N
  • Locked
Special Report: Bloomberg reloads in push for gun control
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
DMK
  • Locked
  • Poll
Domestic terror attacks: Would increase or decrease public support for gun control?
Replies
16
Views
946
greyhound
G
Ryanxia
  • Locked
Delaware gun control push
Replies
0
Views
416
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
Back
Top