Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Western countries with strict laws against the ownership of lethal weapons, murders by lethal weapons still occur: jealous men kill their girlfriends, wives, ex-wives and their wives' lovers and gang members still kill other gang members, but at low rates. These kinds of killings can't be avoided, even in peaceful countries that have never really had a gun culture. I can't imagine what the rate of "residual" murders would be like in the US, even if all the states banned lethal weapons. Gun sweeps wouldn't cure this problem, either.
And, then, what about terrorists who conduct mass murders with trucks and cars, as in Paris, London and Stockholm? Some years ago, a Danish biker gang raided a Swedish arsenal and fired a bazooka into a rival gang's clubhouse. (It went clean through the house without exploding...it was an armor-piercing rocket).
Not to mention the powerful forces that fight against gun ownership restrictions in the US.
Why would a gun ban lead to this level of police state when the war on drugs hasn't?
This is why people like you are called gun NUTS. There's this entire delusion involved with gun culture tat stops even the simplest things from being done.
The only proactive government "gun control" agenda that has ever worked, is a total nationwide ban and confiscation. And even that only works when govt conducts repeated periodic sweeps. Checking every house for illegal guns again and again, indefinitely into the future, whether the residents like it or not. In other words, an all-watchful, all-powerful police state.
Democrats up to and including Barack Obama, have praised various nations whose rates of gun deaths have gone down - Japan, Australia, England etc. And they have even expressed a desire to emulate them. Well, guess what: Those are the countries who have almost totally banned guns and even confiscated them. (Mandatory so-called "gun buybacks" are merely forced confiscation where taxpayers are also forced to subsidize you).
Keep in mind that when leftists do-gooders say they want only a few more "reasonable restrictions" on guns, it's because the restrictions they imposed last year didn't work. Crime and mass shootings continue merrily along. And so now they want to impose a few more regulations and restrictions. And when those don't work, next year a few more. The only scheme that does work, is complete confiscation of all of the people's guns, followed by regular house-to-house searches. And that's exactly what they are gradually working their way up to, one small piece at a time.
So-called "gun control" laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. And they aren't the ones causing the problem.
The only proactive government "gun control" agenda that has ever worked, is a total nationwide ban and confiscation. And even that only works when govt conducts repeated periodic sweeps. Checking every house for illegal guns again and again, indefinitely into the future, whether the residents like it or not. In other words, an all-watchful, all-powerful police state.
Democrats up to and including Barack Obama, have praised various nations whose rates of gun deaths have gone down - Japan, Australia, England etc. And they have even expressed a desire to emulate them. Well, guess what: Those are the countries who have almost totally banned guns and even confiscated them. (Mandatory so-called "gun buybacks" are merely forced confiscation where taxpayers are also forced to subsidize you).
Keep in mind that when leftists do-gooders say they want only a few more "reasonable restrictions" on guns, it's because the restrictions they imposed last year didn't work. Crime and mass shootings continue merrily along. And so now they want to impose a few more regulations and restrictions. And when those don't work, next year a few more. The only scheme that does work, is complete confiscation of all of the people's guns, followed by regular house-to-house searches. And that's exactly what they are gradually working their way up to, one small piece at a time.
So-called "gun control" laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. And they aren't the ones causing the problem.
The only proactive government "gun control" agenda that has ever worked, is a total nationwide ban and confiscation. And even that only works when govt conducts repeated periodic sweeps. Checking every house for illegal guns again and again, indefinitely into the future, whether the residents like it or not. In other words, an all-watchful, all-powerful police state.
Democrats up to and including Barack Obama, have praised various nations whose rates of gun deaths have gone down - Japan, Australia, England etc. And they have even expressed a desire to emulate them. Well, guess what: Those are the countries who have almost totally banned guns and even confiscated them. (Mandatory so-called "gun buybacks" are merely forced confiscation where taxpayers are also forced to subsidize you).
Keep in mind that when leftists do-gooders say they want only a few more "reasonable restrictions" on guns, it's because the restrictions they imposed last year didn't work. Crime and mass shootings continue merrily along. And so now they want to impose a few more regulations and restrictions. And when those don't work, next year a few more. The only scheme that does work, is complete confiscation of all of the people's guns, followed by regular house-to-house searches. And that's exactly what they are gradually working their way up to, one small piece at a time.
So-called "gun control" laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. And they aren't the ones causing the problem.
People with no guns, are going to come take our guns.....
Is it hard to see the flawed thinking in that?
Liberals only want to allow the police and military that are under their control to be armed.
The flawed thinking is that if they were to ban and confiscate guns from those who lawfully own them that would eliminate "gun violence". So it stands to reason that if those ban and confiscation schemes are supposed to work than there would be no need for law enforcement agencies to be armed either? Yet Liberals are not calling for the disarming of America's law enforcement agencies as they need them to do their dirty work.
Quote:
The debate over gun control can be summed up thusly: Those of us who don't like guns in the hands of our non-costumed brethren, will vote to ensure men with guns, under the guise of the "law," will come and take the property that is rightfully yours, killing you should you resist our will sufficiently.
This is what we call "violence by-proxy" and makes the voter for violence no less culpable in the extortion and death that will ensue.
As Stefan Molyneux correctly observed; if a person claims they are non-violent and are for “gun control” they are not truly anti-gun nor are they non-violent people - because the reality is that guns and violence will be needed to disarm innocent law abiding people.
This is because those people who claim they are anti-gun and anti-violence, who claim to support “gun control,” will need the credible threat of police violence and the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns should they resist the attempt to further centralize their monopoly on violence.
So those who claim to be anti-gun and anti-violence are really very pro-gun and very pro-violence. They ultimately believe that only government officials (which are of course portrayed as reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. This obviously flies in the face of reality as the 20th century has proven once and for all.
It’s important to note that those who advocate this type of centralized monopoly of violence do so as cowards, because it’s not their lives on the line, rather they advocate others using violence on their behalf in order to force their misguided views on innocent people who wish to do nothing other than protect themselves and other innocents.
There is no such thing as "gun control," there is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political class and the forces they control which, as recent history has proven is a murderous nightmare for the peace loving, disenfranchised, and disarmed citizenry.--Ron Danielowski
Quote:
by Ben Moreell
When a person gains power over other persons–political power to force other persons to do his bidding when they do not believe it right to do so–it seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. It may take time for this weakness to become visible. In fact, its full extent is frequently left to the historians to record, but we eventually learn of it. It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Please do not misunderstand me. These persons who are corrupted by the process of ruling over their fellow men are not innately evil. They begin as honest men. Their motives for wanting to direct the actions of others may be purely patriotic and altruistic. Indeed, they may wish only “to do good for the people.” But, apparently, the only way they can think of to do this “good” is to impose more restrictive laws.
Now, obviously, there is no point in passing a law which requires people to do something they would do anyhow; or which prevents them from doing what they are not going to do anyhow. Therefore, the possessor of the political power could very well decide to leave every person free to do as he pleases so long as he does not infringe upon the same right of every other person to do as he pleases. However, that concept appears to be utterly without reason to a person who wants to exercise political power over his fellow man, for he asks himself: “How can I ‘do good’ for the people if I just leave them alone?” Besides, he does not want to pass into history as a “do nothing” leader who ends up as a footnote somewhere. So he begins to pass laws that will force all other persons to conform to his ideas of what is good for them.
That is the danger point! The more restrictions and compulsions he imposes on other persons, the greater the strain on his own morality. As his appetite for using force against people increases, he tends increasingly to surround himself with advisers who also seem to derive a peculiar pleasure from forcing others to obey their decrees. He appoints friends and supporters to easy jobs of questionable necessity. If there are not enough jobs to go around, he creates new ones. In some instances, jobs are sold to the highest bidder. The hard-earned money of those over whom he rules is loaned for questionable private endeavors or spent on grandiose public projects at home and abroad. If there is opposition, an emergency is declared or created to justify these actions.
If the benevolent ruler stays in power long enough, he eventually concludes that power and wisdom are the same thing. And as he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom. He becomes converted to the seductive thesis that election to public office endows the official with both power and wisdom. At this point, he begins to lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right and what is politically expedient.
Liberals only want to allow the police and military that are under their control to be armed.
The flawed thinking is that if they were to ban and confiscate guns from those who lawfully own them that would eliminate "gun violence". So it stands to reason that if those ban and confiscation schemes are supposed to work than there would be no need for law enforcement agencies to be armed either? Yet Liberals are not calling for the disarming of America's law enforcement agencies as they need them to do their dirty work.
Mmmm. Yes. But like I outlined earlier it would be quite ...interesting to see LE trying to do a weapons sweep in the gang areas. It would be Fallujah in US cities. There would likely be some stiff resistance from law abiding gun owners as well. Hmmm, I wonder why LE is getting military armored vehicles ad other equipment and is arming up with light to heavy weapons? They are allowed select fire weapons now as well.
Marxist, Communist, Socialist feel the only way to curb crime is make more laws.. instead of going after criminals, who they know are NOT afraid of laws/LEO or victims, they make more criminals by making more laws.
Mmmm. Yes. But like I outlined earlier it would be quite ...interesting to see LE trying to do a weapons sweep in the gang areas. It would be Fallujah in US cities. There would likely be some stiff resistance from law abiding gun owners as well. Hmmm, I wonder why LE is getting military armored vehicles ad other equipment and is arming up with light to heavy weapons? They are allowed select fire weapons now as well.
Fascinating Captain
I don't think they'd have the manpower to do it. Besides there are Constitutional issues about going on warrantless house to house searches. I don't think that the "gun grabbers" ever even take that into consideration? That's just one more Constitutional protection that would have to be sacrificed on the alter of the "greater good". But wouldn't you like to see the look on the "gun grabbers" face when law enforcement officials busted down the doors of their own homes, turning the contents upside down searching for weapons? After all they'd have to search every home in the United States. That would certainly give them a bitter taste of their own medicine.
As far as law enforcement personnel goes, I'd be willing to bet that the greater majority of them are on our side. They all have their privately owned weapons too. I just can't imagine that the day will ever come that they would use their power to forcibly confiscate lawfully owned firearms. If it ever came to that they would have a war on their hands that's for sure.
It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. If so the military would be destroying their own friends, family and neighborhoods too. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. Not only that but if the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories and farm the fields. All commerce would come to a grinding halt. My guess is that they would disobey orders, and in all probability would use those weapons against those that ordered them to do so.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. As the armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
I like to post this from time to time. I don't know who wrote it?
Quote:
"There are only a few laws in history that are universally applicable. One of these is that the ruling classes do not want the peasantry armed. They will do what they can to convince you that to be armed is dangerous. They will attempt to do this while they themselves are surrounded by armed body guards. Idiots will not notice this hypocrisy and sycophants will ignore it. Fools will surrender their arms in the name of "safety". They will insensibly surrender their liberty at the same time. This is how slaves are made."
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 03-23-2019 at 02:24 PM..
In Western countries with strict laws against the ownership of lethal weapons, murders by lethal weapons still occur: jealous men kill their girlfriends, wives, ex-wives and their wives' lovers and gang members still kill other gang members, but at low rates. These kinds of killings can't be avoided, even in peaceful countries that have never really had a gun culture. I can't imagine what the rate of "residual" murders would be like in the US, even if all the states banned lethal weapons. Gun sweeps wouldn't cure this problem, either.
And, then, what about terrorists who conduct mass murders with trucks and cars, as in Paris, London and Stockholm? Some years ago, a Danish biker gang raided a Swedish arsenal and fired a bazooka into a rival gang's clubhouse. (It went clean through the house without exploding...it was an armor-piercing rocket).
Not to mention the powerful forces that fight against gun ownership restrictions in the US.
There also have been numerous cases in Sweden of hand grenades being used by criminal gangs.
I actually do agree with OP. The end game is total ban and confiscation, as in Japan. Their participants in Olympic shooting sports have to go off-shore to practice.
But that is not politically possible in the US, hence we on the left have no choice but to follow a path of incrementalism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
