Author Topic: Gun Rhethoric (Read 3781 times)

SS_N_NE · « **on:** February 21, 2016, 10:47:39 PM »

Gun owners represent a significant populace in the United States.

Politicians (via their hired bean counters) exploit significant populace groups to serve their agendas. Minorities, illegal aliens, environmentalists, LGBT and many others are groups exploited by politicians.

When the "gun control" talks start, there is significant "pro" or "con" discussion. Ignore the whole pro/con discussion. Instead, understand the root reason politicians concern themselves with firearms is about control. When you are in favor with gun owners you can get money (membership dues) to lobby and control political vote (give letter grades to politicians). If you are anti-gun, then taking away gun ownership could quickly eliminate the lobbies, remove vote control devices and generally throw a significant populace into total political apathy that no longer care what anyone is doing.

I have had this discussion with a number of people lately and see a little light go on after they hear this explanation. It makes me wonder how many people "get it". We are so deep with the media rhetoric that we are blinded to what politicians do to gain a measure of control.

It requires clearing your mind, standing back a distance from the issues and understanding what is really taking place without the pressure of rhetoric clouding the root reason.

Have you noticed that neither the pro or con sides talk about this ploy for control? Having favor of a large voting group is powerful. Elimination of a large voting group is powerful. Nobody wants to point out how their exploitation of a group can be used to gain political power to achieve an agenda.

How do you feel realizing you are being exploited for political gain? Can this thought process be used with those people exploited on the "anti" side when they realize they are only being used by a politician(s) for their agenda?

greg58 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2016, 11:17:18 PM »

If more gun control measures passed, I do not believe that gun owners would become politically apathetic.
I have never been a one issue voter, I don't take my voting orders from the NRA, in fact I left the NRA 15 years ago because their whole focus was fundraising, calling, begging for money, and not enough action.
The success shown by Trump and Bernie in this election does bear out the dissatisfaction voters have with the 2 party status quo.
I just yearn for a leader that will follow the Constitution. His name is Ted Cruz!

Greg58

SemperFiGuy · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2016, 05:56:02 AM »

Quote

His name is Ted Cruz!

Cool that you should mention that name.

sfg

Lorimor · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2016, 06:46:06 AM »

Quote from: SS_N_NE on February 21, 2016, 10:47:39 PM

Gun owners represent a significant populace in the United States.

Politicians (via their hired bean counters) exploit significant populace groups to serve their agendas. Minorities, illegal aliens, environmentalists, LGBT and many others are groups exploited by politicians.

When the "gun control" talks start, there is significant "pro" or "con" discussion. Ignore the whole pro/con discussion. Instead, understand the root reason politicians concern themselves with firearms is about control. When you are in favor with gun owners you can get money (membership dues) to lobby and control political vote (give letter grades to politicians). If you are anti-gun, then taking away gun ownership could quickly eliminate the lobbies, remove vote control devices and generally throw a significant populace into total political apathy that no longer care what anyone is doing.

I have had this discussion with a number of people lately and see a little light go on after they hear this explanation. It makes me wonder how many people "get it". We are so deep with the media rhetoric that we are blinded to what politicians do to gain a measure of control.

It requires clearing your mind, standing back a distance from the issues and understanding what is really taking place without the pressure of rhetoric clouding the root reason.

Have you noticed that neither the pro or con sides talk about this ploy for control? Having favor of a large voting group is powerful. Elimination of a large voting group is powerful. Nobody wants to point out how their exploitation of a group can be used to gain political power to achieve an agenda.

How do you feel realizing you are being exploited for political gain? Can this thought process be used with those people exploited on the "anti" side when they realize they are only being used by a politician(s) for their agenda?

I'm not sure what your point is. I know that a significant portion of the Left, i.e., the modern Democratic party, would ban guns if they could (a good many within their ranks endeavor to do just that everyday and frankly, have been at it for decades.) The GOP, on the other hand, still has a few good men (and women) left in its ranks that will defend the right to bear arms.

So yeah, I'm exploited?

depserv · « **Reply #4 on:** February 22, 2016, 09:19:34 AM »

Attempts by government to control people predate our current political system. In fact it could be said that what is called gun control predates guns. It doesn't take much to figure out that if you and your cronies have pointed sticks and stone axes and no one else in the tribe has them you get to be the boss.

Here's how I see it: there are people who have a fundamental drive to dominate other people, that is as strong as the hunger or sex drive. I remember this being mentioned in a book I read many years ago and thinking that the author didn't know what he was talking about. But in the decades since then I've come to realize that he did. It follows that those with that drive would seek positions where they could have control over people, and as with many things, no amount of power is enough for them: they always want more. So they become political leaders (among other things), and try to increase what power they have.

There are other people who have a fundamental drive to be dominated. They don't go around saying "I want to be dominated" (though some might); what they do is have a fear of taking responsibility for their own lives, and don't understand that who is responsible ultimately has control. These fools are natural allies of those with a desire to dominate.

There are others of course who have no such drive and simply want to live their lives and let other people live theirs. People of this type formed this nation, based on individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility. But not everyone living here wants to live like that. So there is naturally conflict between those wanting men to be free and those wanting men to be controlled and taken care of by government.

This dynamic has been a part of political struggles throughout history, and what we call gun control is a natural part of it. That struggle, between those who want individual freedom and those who want government control, shapes the political debate, not the other way around.

(I like Cruz too by the way. I like Trump too, though there is a question over whether he really believes what he has been saying, and there is fear that he might run as a patriot but then govern as a liberal. I'd rather see Cruz debate Hillary and I'd rather see him place justices on the Supreme Court (including Scalia's replacement). But I'd like to see the illegals sent home too. And there are ways that it can be done.)

Lorimor · « **Reply #5 on:** February 22, 2016, 04:49:56 PM »

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”

-Daniel Webster

Mntnman · « **Reply #6 on:** February 22, 2016, 08:08:37 PM »

Quote from: greg58 on February 21, 2016, 11:17:18 PM

I just yearn for a leader that will follow the Constitution. His name is Ted Cruz!

Greg58

Actually, his name is Ben Carson. He is the only candidate still in it (for a lil while longer, lol) that is not running for the prestige of the office. He is in it to maintain the integrity of the Constitution. Cruz is no slouch, though.

GreyGeek · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2016, 09:36:04 AM »

Quote from: Mntnman on February 22, 2016, 08:08:37 PM

Actually, his name is Ben Carson. He is the only candidate still in it (for a lil while longer, lol) that is not running for the prestige of the office. He is in it to maintain the integrity of the Constitution. Cruz is no slouch, though.

+1

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2016, 07:02:46 PM »

Quote from: Lorimor on February 22, 2016, 06:46:06 AM

I'm not sure what your point is.

Guess I wanted to open a discussion on the concept of political "CONTROL".

The point is that politicians have no cares for gun control, climate change, immigration, life...or nearly any other controversial subject. All politician care about is money and power (control).

Gun owners are exploited for votes the same as those with concern about crime and fear of guns are exploited for votes. Both sides get tied up in the argument, but never realize that they are simply being exploited for a political agenda. Gun owners don't want their rights taken---exploited. Hoplophobes or at least anyone thinking gun control can have a positive result---exploited.

The point is that there should be more discussion on how the politicians are using citizen concerns to create division by exploiting citizens. Interesting as the concerns may be...it is still more a case of being exploited than any real effort to fix anything. Instead of falling for the rhetoric we should be discussing how politicians are using issues to exploit people. We should be discussing why politicians are pitting citizens against citizens and exploiting national issues with no intentions of fixing anything.

Politicians are so focused on getting to what ever goal they have been assigned (I believe politicians are little more than puppets for greater powers) they threaten and/or create law to create division within the citizenship. The constant chaos allows them to get money from one of the bigger piggy banks in the world to suit a few. Our right to personal defense and pursuit of happiness via our firearm interests are simply tossed about so others can get money or control others (most likely to get more money). Federal or State Constitution mean nothing when politicians can manipulate law and people.

The point is that fighting over 2nd rights is a waste of time and the longer it is fought, the greater the chance of loosing this right. Maybe a better approach is discussing the realization that people are being divided by some sneaky, underhanded...persons.

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2016, 07:21:32 PM »

Quote from: greg58 on February 21, 2016, 11:17:18 PM

If more gun control measures passed, I do not believe that gun owners would become politically apathetic.

So, if Hillary did manage to invoke a "Australia" type buy out, you don't think there would be a significant lack of interest in firearms. I have seen Obama and Clinton charge the NRA as obstacles to bringing safety to citizens. Of course they failed to acknowledge the NRA is a membership of citizens. Does the NRA represent even 1/10th of the gun owners in the nation? Apathy from the other 90%? How big of an obstacle would a lobby with 100% of the gun owners involved? There would not even be a conversation.

But, the whole point of this post is that it doesn't matter. The politicians don't care. The politicians are simply using the known facts that there are people that want to keep their Rights and there are people that fear or don't care about that right or would even take a Right just for spite. The politicians only know if they can create a fight, suggest they represent a side...they can get a calculated number of votes.

How do you like the idea that your interests and Right are being played with simply to take advantage of the "anti", uninformed, fearful, spiteful, really don't care group...that is calculated to be greater in number and more likely to vote a certain way.

Lorimor · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2016, 07:30:34 PM »

I'm sorry but I believe the majority of anti-gun politicians actually want to do away with the private ownership of firearms. Some, a few, are using the issue simply to gain more power. Again, I believe the true believers are actually anti-gun, period. And they are in the majority. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Sure gun control divides the populace. And politicians use it to divide the nation and gain more power. A sad number of folk in our country don't understand the intent of the 2A. Nor do they care to understand it. They don't like guns. They don't like the guy down the street who owns guns. The TV tells them they don't like guns. The guy on TV who gives them free stuff tells them they don't like guns.

I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.

And neither will I.

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2016, 08:43:13 PM »

Quote from: depserv on February 22, 2016, 09:19:34 AM

But I'd like to see the illegals sent home too.

Here is an example...illegals.

Gun owners tend to be well versed in the laws. We don't want to get in trouble for some stupid law trip up. For the most part, we follow the laws as we can figure them out. It is not unreasonable to expect other people to follow the law. So why wouldn't we be concerned that people criminally sneak into our country, overstay visas, etc. The politicians saying they will build a fence and kick out the illegal immigrants are very popular with people that believe law should be followed.

When you realize that more people mean more money. Illegals own houses and cars (bank loans). Organizations (whole cities) get money from the government for putting illegals in to their societies and setting them up for more government benefits (that go into the city/state). You realize there is going to be a fight.

It has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It has to do with the money. It has to do with having a low income group to buy the older houses and used cars so other people can buy new houses and new cars (more people/ greater spending/ more works/ more taxes). It has to do with highly educated people that will work for low wages (think IT in the big cities and Bill Gates on this.).

Sanctuary cities: Don' t mess with their illegals because the city looses cooperation with criminal activity...BS! How about chucking thousands of illegals would result in a lot of abandoned property (with the banks stuck with the worthless properties), lost government funds (welfare brought to the city is spent in the city), loss of cheap manpower and people to absorb the lower scale of the economy (bigger numbers is needed at the bottom).

If you think someone is going to get elected and suddenly throw majors cities into failure, force banks (these guys control the money) into holding the ticket on worthless properties...guess again.

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2016, 09:08:06 PM »

Quote from: Lorimor on February 23, 2016, 07:30:34 PM

I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.

I am not asking anyone to drop the topic. Instead hit it from a different angle. I don' t believe there are many real "anti-gun" politicians. Maybe a few really believe that way and are recruited that way. Instead I believe there is higher power that takes advantage from any division they can create. Division over a Right creates strong division.

Instead, I am suggesting citizens need to unite. Realize we are being played and put a stop to it. Both sides of the issue, stop and recognize why we have been pitted against each other.

Consider the "Affordable Care Act". How did the government manage for force everyone to buy a commercial product? Ever notice what commercials are hammering you on TV....Progressive, Allstate, Gieco...etc.? Could it be that the insurance and medical/pharmaceutical industries (some of the largest money makers in this country) have enough lobby to force a citizen requirement to purchase a product (health insurance)? Maybe some apathy from people already with insurance from work, some political correctness and some genuine need, add in those that got stuck with what they already have and the insurance companies make a killing in a forced market.

m morton · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2016, 11:22:38 AM »

Quote from: Lorimor on February 23, 2016, 07:30:34 PM

I'm sorry but I believe the majority of anti-gun politicians actually want to do away with the private ownership of firearms. Some, a few, are using the issue simply to gain more power. Again, I believe the true believers are actually anti-gun, period. And they are in the majority. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Sure gun control divides the populace. And politicians use it to divide the nation and gain more power. A sad number of folk in our country don't understand the intent of the 2A. Nor do they care to understand it. They don't like guns. They don't like the guy down the street who owns guns. The TV tells them they don't like guns. The guy on TV who gives them free stuff tells them they don't like guns.

I'd gladly drop the topic altogether but to do so would be foolhardy. The anti-freedom forces are relentless. They will not quit.

And neither will I.

the funny thing is those that are ANTI GUN are anti gun because of all the Hood rats , gang bangers and all around POS in this world in citys like Detroit .Chicago.. or our own North O that own guns but use them for violent acts etc.. ... it's not the hard working stiffs that want to carry ccw , or home defense that are the issue . then add to it the revolving door on our jails and the dirt bags are back on the streets doing the same shat ... so our street will never be safe... i say kill off the dirt bags and we get a win win .. safer streets and empty jails lol

ILoveCats · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2016, 11:32:11 AM »

You guys can keep dreamin' about Cruz and Carson all you want. I really like those guys too. But the only question really remaining in this election is who are Trump and Hillary going to choose as their running mates.

I'm not saying that's all bad. I think a lot of the appeal of Trump is that he eats right through the famous Clinton "Teflon". People complain that he makes a mockery of the presidency, but then he reminds us that Bill was having an intern do *that* in the Oval Office.

Ok so... Who made a mockery, exactly, Hillary? Who's a opportunistic misogynist, Hillary? Oh, I see. Time to change the topic. That's what I thought.

Was another huge populist from our history, Andrew Jackson, any more "presidential"?

Mntnman · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2016, 01:33:44 PM »

Quote from: feralcatkillr on February 24, 2016, 11:32:11 AM

You guys can keep dreamin' about Cruz and Carson all you want. I really like those guys too. But the only question really remaining in this election is who are Trump and Hillary going to choose as their running mates.

I hope he drops out. He is just saying what appeals to frustrated conservatives. He has no position based on bedrock principles. We can not trust that he will uphold the Constitution. He already has said numerous times that he would err on the side of safety, even if it violates the Constitution.

ILoveCats · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2016, 02:14:29 PM »

Quote from: Mntnman on February 24, 2016, 01:33:44 PM

I hope he drops out. He is just saying what appeals to frustrated conservatives.

I think dropping out is the last thing on his mind. He's in it to win it, and I think after Super Tuesday it will be in the bag, for better or worse.

The big thing in his favor is that it's not just "frustrated conservatives" who are flocking to his arena-filling events. He's pulling in anti-establishment votes from moderates, and a smattering of liberals, and across more racial lines than Hillary may be able to cross. That populist draw is what Cruz lacks. Cruz looks good on paper as a "constitutional conservative" but would get slaughtered in the general election. He's not likable. He doesn't make you laugh like Trump does. He's downright creepy looking. Sorry, but that actually matters. It shouldn't, but it does.

Trump doesn't care that the old-guard GOP donors and GOP establishment hate him. And who cares? The old guard gave us Romney and Dole and McCain/Palin as nominees. And the moderates and young-generation Republicans love it that he was the only one on the GOP debate stage with the stones to say the Iraq war 2.0 was a stupid waste of lives and money.

I really don't see him flip-flopping on guns once in office. He's shrewd enough to know it's the political third rail. Supposedly his son Don Jr. is an avid shooter. NRA just did something about him on their facebook feed.

SS_N_NE · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2016, 08:04:43 PM »

Based on the function of a President....there is the ability to sign or veto a bill. President doesn't get to make any laws. Could make it easy to get some bills passed. Could make some harder to pass.

In any case, step back and listen to these people. With little exception there is the typical mud slinging, to remove any responsibility to explain exactly what they intend to do and how they plan to do it. Ask them a question and they rehash everything they have said before, but never answer the questions. Politicians.

Build a wall: Wouldn't it be cheaper to throw employers in jail and stick them with heavy fines for employing an illegal immigrant or expired work permit? Eliminate welfare to non-citizens and persons lacking permission to be here. No work, no money...why stay here? They would not come here, they would pack up and leave. No wall, no deportation, no ICE. Whoa...how many government workers would loose jobs on that idea. States and cities love the government funds they receive to handle their immigrant issues.

How many vows to kill Obama-care? Do you hear the part where they say they have something much better? So not eliminated, just converted into so other nonsense. Citizens should not be forced to buy a commercial and traded product.

Then the flip side is offering free school. Sure let the remaining businesses be taxed out of existence to provide government money for students...who will need to leave the country to get a job.

Mntnman · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2016, 09:04:33 PM »

I wasn't very clear. I meant I hope he drops out because his supporters wake up and decide he is not a good candidate. He clearly is not. He is very successfully employing his cult of personality which is how Obama got elected. Say all the things that folks want to hear and make them believe he is the one different from the rest, looking out for Joe citizen. He is all flash and bang, nothing of substance. Every one of his positions that his followers love is the complete opposite of his standing in the recent past. He just might be the biggest political insider in the race. Buying and selling political capital is what he has done for 4 decades.

If Trump is the nominee, we don't fix the damage Obama has done. The longer it is there, the less likely it ever will go away.

What this country needs is liberty minded leadership and I don't think we will ever get it again.

DenmanShooter · « **Reply #19 on:** March 06, 2016, 10:58:19 PM »

Your point is exactly right. It isn't about guns or whatever the issue d'jour. It is about control. Or rather: The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.

And as far as Carson goes, he is not a constitutionalist. He is a good man, a great doctor but would be a poor president. Remember, he thinks the constitution applies differently depending on where you live.

When asked by Glenn Beck if people should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons, Dr. Benjamin Carson said: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (Glenn Beck Show, March 1, 2013)