General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Gun Rhethoric

(1/5) > >>

SS_N_NE:
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:
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:

--- Quote ---His name is Ted Cruz!
--- End quote ---

Cool that you should mention that name.

sfg

Lorimor:

--- 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?



--- End quote ---

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:
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.) 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page