Why does the government want your guns?

[Merkava_4]

Why does the government want your guns? Have you ever thought about that?

Here's another question:

What keeps the government in power? I'll tell you, it's quite simple really:

1. The control over the belief system
2. The control over the financial system
3. The control over violence

The control over the belief system

Why do you pay your taxes? Because you believe that if you don't, you'll be put in jail.

Why do you pull over to the side of the road when the policeman turns on his flashing red lights? Because you believe he has the authority to do so.

Why do you go to work to earn wages? Because you believe that with those dollars earned, you'll be able to purchase goods and services.


The control over the financial system

As long as the government assures its citizens that the dollar has value, the government maintains control over the financial system. The government maintains the dollar's value by making sure it remains the world's reserve currency by making sure that only dollars are used to buy oil. As long as the world needs dollars to buy oil, and as long as oil is the predominant source of energy, the dollar will always have value.


The control over violence

What keeps control over violence and makes sure violence is kept to a minimum? Our law enforcement officers; and just incase that line of defense fails, we have our military.


What if ... what if the belief system failed because the citizens no longer felt the government had any legitimate authority?

What if ... what if the financial system failed because the dollar no longer had value?


So now the citizens no longer believe that the government is legitimate; the dollar has no value; and the citizens are angry. So what does the government have left to fall back on? They still have the control over violence don't they? Of course they do, by utilizing their law enforcement officers and their military. But there's one small problem: THE SECOND AMENDMENT. The people are still armed. "Oh gosh darn," the government says; "we should have taken their guns away earlier."

 

[JERRY]

because there is only so much you can push a man who also owns a gun.

 

[Zardaia]

I think more than the gun grabber or more sinister tin foil hat type reasons it's simple: because it's the "easiest" way they can show they're "doing somthing". Most probably know even if they won't admit it, that it won't do squat to stop violence. But enough people think it will that in many states, unfortunatly, it's just good politics. Now I know people here won't like that bit but hey, sombody's voting for em. That and it's simpler than trying to address the root cause of violence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think we badly miss the boat when we put all the blame on government. We pick the government. It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Rhetoric like the OP's post doesn't help.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.

 

[Merkava_4]

I think we badly miss the boat when we put all the blame on government.

Who do you think is behind the effort to rescind the 2nd Amendment? The government. How are they doing that? By using the media to scare people. Most of the people who listen to the media are city dwellers. Most of the city dwellers have been raised into thinking that guns are dangerous and shouldn't be around.

 

[Artigas]

I think politicians often favor gun control not so much out of sinister plans to disarm us before shoving tyranny down our throats--I won't deny that's a cause, however--but because they see government and themselves as parents and their constituents as children. It's elitism, limousine socialism, perverse noblesse oblige.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Who do you think is behind the effort to rescind the 2nd Amendment? The government. ...

Prove it.

Let's see some evidence. And make it good. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have given us no good reason to accept your assertions or your opinions.

...Most of the city dwellers have been raised into thinking that guns are dangerous and shouldn't be around.

Probably true, and I said as much. What are you doing to change that? What are you doing to change those attitudes and educate such people? What are you doing to encourage the people you are in daily contact to have a more positive attitude towards guns and gun owners?

How many new people have you introduced to shooting?

 

[1911 guy]

My hebrew is REALLY rusty, so I'll take a stab at it. "Chariot"?

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that gun control comes from different ideologies. They are no more unified than we as gun owners are. Some want bans or regulation because they truly believe it will affect crime. Most are on board simply because they fell the need to do something, anything, and gun control doesn't affect them so it's an easy target. Then, of course, are the truly sinister, those who know exactly what they are doing and why, the type of people Merkava describes.

So it's not really a conspiracy, they're not unified in their goals or practices. But it's easy to see it that way when the end result of it is the same.

 

[Merkava_4]

Prove it.

Let's see some evidence. And make it good. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have given us no good reason to accept your assertions or your opinions.

Why else do you think the government wants gun control? Because of the safety of its citizens? The government couldn't care less about the safety of its citizens; it's control they want. By the way, I'm not talking about the same government that was once ran by George Washington; that government is long gone. The government we have now is corrupt to the core and is owned by corporations. We're heading for corporate fascism and the only thing standing between that and what we have now is gun owners who believe in the constitution and the way it was originally written by the framers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why else do you think the government wants gun control? Because of the safety of its citizens? The government couldn't care less about the safety of its citizens; it's control they want. By the way, I'm not talking about the same government that was once ran by George Washington; that government is long gone....

That's not evidence. That is mere conjecture. Apparently you don't know the difference -- even more reason not to pay attention to you.

...The government we have now is corrupt to the core and is owned by corporations. We're heading for corporate fascism...

More blather and conjecture.

...the only thing standing between that and what we have now is gun owners who believe in the constitution and the way it was originally written by the framers.

And if you are leading us down a path that advocates illegal acts of the use of violence to achieve political ends, stop right now.

THR is

...an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership...

and the advocacy of illegal acts or the use of violence to achieve political ends will not be tolerated.

 

[Silverado6x6]

I would love to see viral videos of millions of people tearing up their tax forms, converting their weapons to full auto if possible and using sound suppressors without paying the taxes.

Oh and openly carrying while adopting a local uniform declaring them citizens of the 2A requirements, thats right an actual 2A uniform. Simple and easy to make. And easily removable so as to blend back into the population.

Without any berets.

 

[beatledog7]

While there is probably some merit to the OP's argument, it is nearly impossible to prove through the presentation of evidence. One could extend the point by adding that if the government is doing as the OP suggests, it would also cover up the evidence.

One approach to actually "proving" such assertions lies in proving that there is little to no evidence to the contrary. As one demonstrates that Explanations A, B, C, etc. cannot be true, all the remaining possibilities take on a higher statistical probability of being true.

Another approach is to discover the simplest explanation that could conceivably be true and then to set about trying to disprove it. In this case, the simplest explanation might be that the government's desire to take our guns is analogous to one child's desire to take a toy away from another--he doesn't really want the toy for any articulable reason; he just wants the other child to not have it.

So we reach the answer most likely to be correct. Why does government want your guns? It doesn't.

 

[Nico Testosteros]

The OP assumes the govt wants our guns. That isn't the case. At worst, some people in government want to restrict the future purchases of certain types of guns.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Well, first of all, the government doesn't want my guns. At best, it can only be said that the government doesn't want me to own certain types of guns, for whatever reasons.

The government has enough of its own guns...it doesn't need nor want to add mine to the collection.

As for the rest...that is a carefully constructed opinion based on little more than jaded, and mostly false, suppositions.

There is no single entity called "government". If there were, you could point that person out with a finger and say "that is government!"

The government is composed of many tens of thousands of representatives, from the smallest local government to the highest federal government. Each of these representatives not only have their own opinions, values, and interpretations of the various laws in which our country has invested in, they also have thousands of aids and advisors in which to assist them in carrying out the duties of their various offices. Each of these with their own opinions, values, and interpretations of the various laws in which our country has invested in.

Therefore you cannot unilaterally assign such characteristics to the "government".


Whether we believe this or not, the government is a collective representation of the millions of people that make up our country. And for every person or instance that you can name where it may be claimed that the government does NOT represent any particular person/group, I can point out to you many others in which it DOES represent...for the same topic.

To take the current issue with firearms and gun control...it is blatently obvious that there are factions within all levels of the government which represent BOTH sides of the issue. We discuss them here on THR all the time.


So, that "government" you believe to be so evil? Take a good, hard look around you. Your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, your brothers and sisters in arms in the military, your college students, your babysitters, your wife, your children...all these and more are "the government".

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The government wants our guns so they can sell them to Mexican criminals, of course.

 

[Manco]

I think we badly miss the boat when we put all the blame on government. We pick the government.

Is that really true? For the most part we choose from among the candidates presented to us by the political parties. Then there are many other people in the government who influence them, both directly and by the information they present to those who make decisions, including the president. We may pick the elected officials from a pre-selected list, but we're hardly in control of how the government functions.

Of course, the people are to blame, too, but that does not leave blameless the politicians who, elected perhaps for other reasons, seem hellbent on infringing certain rights.

It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

And that's all?

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

That's true, but who influences their thinking the most? The politicians they elected who lie to them.

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Without a doubt, this is true. But it is the long-term goal we've been working toward, often one person at a time, while there is a more immediate threat right now from politicians who need to be called out for their hypocrisy. When they demonize us, the natural reaction is to demonize them, or at least their actions. In their case, though, it's fitting--not the high road, admittedly, but fitting.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Rhetoric like the OP's post doesn't help.

Maybe it's a little much in this case, but one of the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment's very existence is as valid as it has ever been throughout human history. People haven't changed--giving people power corrupts them, so there are layers of checks against this, starting with the ballot and ending with firearms. We should be far from the latter (i.e. violent revolution) at present, but the right to maintain our militia capability as a check against government is under attack, and that's the sort of thing that started the revolution that created this country. Sometimes people need to be reminded of these things.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.

That's going to take a while, especially with a generally hostile media.

Prove it.

Let's see some evidence. And make it good. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You have given us no good reason to accept your assertions or your opinions.

It's what governments always do--try to increase their power. The United States is comprised of humans just like every other country in the world throughout history, so it is not exceptional beyond the protections offered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and perhaps the existing gun culture). Those who are in the government have been attacking our right to self-defense against government, namely the 2nd Amendment, for many decades now--that is hardly in question. There doesn't need to be a master plan for tyranny in place right now to be concerned--all tyranny requires are the right conditions and human nature. Obviously it is our job--I'd say it's our duty--to help ensure that the right conditions are never achieved, and one way is to warn of what could happen and at least appears to be happening at present. Hard proof of true intent is difficult to come by, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the warning signs.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Is that really true? For the most part we choose from among the candidates presented to us by the political parties....

The processes by which a party chooses its candidates is often elaborate, but the purpose of the various processes is to identify people likely to win and issues they will be likely to win on.

...That's true, but who influences their thinking the most? The politicians they elected who lie to them....

Politicians want to keep their jobs, power and prestige -- hardly unexpected. But if people allow themselves to be hoodwinked, it's still ultimately their responsibility.

 

[tuj]

It's what governments always do--try to increase their power.

This is a bit of a misstatement. Are you arguing for American "Exceptional-ism" via the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Each branch of most governments does try to increase its power and influence; a struggle that even the US gov't has faced since day one. But to argue that all government's try to increase their power over the governed is well....a hard argument to make. The control exercised over the governed by the government tends to ebb and flow with time and varies dramatically between various forms of government and cultural differences, etc.

For example, the Europeans abandoned slavery long before the US. There are many reasons for this, but ultimately it should be clear that relinquishing the shackles of slavery was certainly a move by the government towards LESS control of the governed.

But if people allow themselves to be hoodwinked, it's still ultimately their responsibility.

No doubt. Which is why it was made possible to remove a President and why most democracies around the world have similar mechanisms.

Why do you pay your taxes? Because you believe that if you don't, you'll be put in jail.

No it's not belief; it is reality. Current interpretation of the law is that Federal income taxes are legal and until the SCOTUS rules it ain't, you had better pay the man...

 

[DammitBoy]

I think we badly miss the boat when we put all the blame on government. We pick the government. It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

This is the problem. Politicians are only interested in getting elected and re-elected. They are not interested in serving the people nor are they interested in helping the Country as a whole. They serve themselves.

The idea of restrictive gun bans is an easy quick band-aid solution that won't work, but will make the majority of voters feel like something was accomplished.

In order to have government and politicians that work for the people and for the good of the country, we will need term limits and campaign finance reform so that we will not be "represented" by only millionaires.

 

[blarby]

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Rhetoric like the OP's post doesn't help.

AMEN !

HAlleluJAH !

Listen to this. In this endeavor, we truly ARE our brothers keeper- and they, ours.

Only by being diligent, respectful, focused, and knowledgeable to all of those around us can we make a difference.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This is the problem. Politicians are only interested in getting elected and re-elected. They are not interested in serving the people nor are they interested in helping the Country....

We, as their employers, need to hold them accountable. The sad fact is that they are satisfying enough people to keep stay in office.

And we are not doing a good enough job of selling our message.

 

[jungle]

Whatever you may think of your government and "gun control", it is wise to remember that in the last century governments have murdered more than 100 million humans, second only to old age and disease.

Clearly the people of the US are highly polarized on many issues, but this is to be expected.

To say that the government is composed of the people is quite misleading, two thirds of the people are not multi millionaires like our congress.

Most people can manage a budget and balance a checkbook, most people don't run monopolies in education, retirement, healthcare and taxation. Most people would not think to tax half the population and not tax the other half at the same rate. Most people don't sell your rights for campaign contributions.
Most people would not choose to force you and your children and grand children into debt. Most people don't think half of your property belongs to them.

Most people don't think they should own weapons and you should not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Stay on topic please.

 

[Drail]

What exactly was the topic again?

 

[Frank Ettin]

The topic was gun control and why the government wants our guns. The topic was not fiscal policy or economics.