Guys... I Just Don't Get It....

[El-Cigarro]

WHY are the Lib/Progs so Hell-Bent on getting my/our GUNS????? I just don't get it????

 

[Chewie]

It's called "Control", "Subjugation", etc., etc.

 

[Cameramonkey]

This is a great video. An awesome speect and outlines the difference between conservative principles and liberal ones.

https://www.facebook.com/jim.hanlon.921/videos/455716171115608/

 

[Tombs]

Because after they get the guns then they no longer have to fear implementing the rest of their authoritarian agenda.

Like your house? We're sorry, an endangered species was found on your property, it's now our house.
Like your job? We're sorry, but your employer isn't paying you enough money so we're forcing them to raise wages, I know you're going to be laid off but we don't care.
Like your children? We're sorry, they belong to the community and need raised with the values of society instilled in them.
Like your freedom? We're sorry, you're just too dangerous to be allowed to have internet access, we're shutting it off until you stop speaking negatively of the administration.

 

[halfmileharry]

Because after they get the guns then they no longer have to fear implementing the rest of their authoritarian agenda.

Like your house? We're sorry, an endangered species was found on your property, it's now our house.
Like your job? We're sorry, but your employer isn't paying you enough money so we're forcing them to raise wages, I know you're going to be laid off but we don't care.
Like your children? We're sorry, they belong to the community and need raised with the values of society instilled in them.
Like your freedom? We're sorry, you're just too dangerous to be allowed to have internet access, we're shutting it off until you stop speaking negatively of the administration.

That is what it appears to be

 

[OakRiver]

It comes down to a clash of cultures. Progressives on the whole have a belief that The People should be heavily reliant on government, that the government may dictate what The People can do, and that the government provides for The People in a time of need or emergency. The focus is very heavily on collectivism rather than individualism, that The People are infants to the parent government, and that the government is overwhelmingly benevolent.

Gun owners by contrast tend to favour more individual rights and freedoms, and less government regulations. Most have accepted responsibility for the safety and security of their loved ones as they are the best placed to respond to a threat to their physical well being from an assailant. They also know that the nature of government means that in times of crisis or emergency (I'm sorry but your stalker will have to wait while we deal with a multiple car pile up) that a certain degree of utilitarianism will be used to determine who to help, and when so know that they have to be self reliant for those times.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because after they get the guns then they no longer have to fear implementing the rest of their authoritarian agenda.

Like your house? We're sorry, an endangered species was found on your property, it's now our house.
Like your job? We're sorry, but your employer isn't paying you enough money so we're forcing them to raise wages, I know you're going to be laid off but we don't care.
Like your children? We're sorry, they belong to the community and need raised with the values of society instilled in them.
Like your freedom? We're sorry, you're just too dangerous to be allowed to have internet access, we're shutting it off until you stop speaking negatively of the administration.

Here you go. I probably would say more, but he pretty well covered it. People generally don't feel the need to prepare for what they don't intend to do, so when they prepare, I generally assume that they intend to follow through. Read up on Agenda 21. It isn't tin foil, it's an official UN plan with official UN documentation, and we have plenty who would do so domestically with or without the UN. Look at Britain where a formerly free people beg the government for what little freedom they still have. Look at the way every dictatorship in modern history has been immediately preceded by denying the soon to be subjugated people arms with which to defend themselves. Look at the first battle of our revolution which was sparked by British troops ON THEIR WAY TO CAPTURE GUNS AND AMMUNITION WHICH THREATENED THE IMPOSITION OF INCREASED RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM.

I would explain this to you the same way that I would explain to the girls that if a home invader wants to tie her down to the bed, it isn't out of fear that she will fall off. If anyone wants to deny you the capacity to resist, that is a pretty good indicator that he intends to give you a good reason to resist.

 

[Leadeye]

It's been a defining characteristic between leadership and everybody else ever since people got organized. Long history, even before guns existed.

 

[Lowe0]

Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree.

I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what they're thinking.

 

[Tombs]

Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree.

I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what they're thinking.

If you think that's why, you haven't talked to many democrats, or you've only talked to some delusional college students.

Go to places like democrat underground. They want guns taken away because they view it as a war against us, they see it as something standing in the way of their goals. It has nothing to do with crime or violence for them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree.

I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what they're thinking.

You have addressed the irrelevant side of the equation. The rank and file liberals are naive/misguided/stupid enough to believe exactly that, which is why they support the people who would enslave them afforded the opportunity.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree.

I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what they're thinking.

Prime example: DDT. It was banned to save birds. Fast forward to today, where millions die from Mosquito borne diseases that likely would not have had to die if they were allowed to be protected by such an effective insecticide.

Decades later, there is new information that the original study may have been flawed and the correlation is not as strong as once thought.

But they were only trying to save the planet, so that makes it all better.

 

[trucker777]

Here you go. I probably would say more, but he pretty well covered it. People generally don't feel the need to prepare for what they don't intend to do, so when they prepare, I generally assume that they intend to follow through. Read up on Agenda 21. It isn't tin foil, it's an official UN plan with official UN documentation, and we have plenty who would do so domestically with or without the UN. Look at Britain where a formerly free people beg the government for what little freedom they still have. Look at the way every dictatorship in modern history has been immediately preceded by denying the soon to be subjugated people arms with which to defend themselves. Look at the first battle of our revolution which was sparked by British troops ON THEIR WAY TO CAPTURE GUNS AND AMMUNITION WHICH THREATENED THE IMPOSITION OF INCREASED RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM.

I would explain this to you the same way that I would explain to the girls that if a home invader wants to tie her down to the bed, it isn't out of fear that she will fall off. If anyone wants to deny you the capacity to resist, that is a pretty good indicator that he intends to give you a good reason to resist.

The Georgia Guidestones in Elbert County, Georgia are real too. There are nefarious agendas out there, for sure. I don't believe it will pan out the way they expect though. Don't believe it for a second.
FEAR is:

FALSE
EVIDENCE
APPEARING
REAL

 

[halfmileharry]

Because they think it'll work - that it'll reduce gun violence, violent fatalities, etc.. I think they're wrong, but they disagree.

I mean, surely some of you have spoken to a liberal, right? Just ask them. There's no need to attribute malicious intent when they're happy to explain what they're thinking.

There's all kinds of liberal thinking. Little of which I can agree with.
I suppose many have been brainwashed into thinking guns have no place in society except for law enforcement and military.

 

[trucker777]

I see 2 schools of thought in the whole right verses left paradigm:
One group sees freedom as the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whoever they want with little or no consequences or repercussions. Also freedom to them is being free from any or all resposibility, and places that responsibility on government. They submit themselves fully to enslavement, and they like it so long as they get to have drugs, meals, entertainment, and whatever else is important to them.

Group 2 sees freedom as the ability and obligation to do what is right, moral, and responsible for their families, themselves, and towards society- independent of any oversight as it is theoretically not needed except in matters of maintaining order.


Just my observation in a nutshell...

 

[trucker777]

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see 2 schools of thought in the whole right verses left paradigm:
One group sees freedom as the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whoever they want with little or no consequences or repercussions. Also freedom to them is being free from any or all resposibility, and places that responsibility on government. They submit themselves fully to enslavement, and they like it so long as they get to have drugs, meals, entertainment, and whatever else is important to them.

Group 2 sees freedom as the ability and obligation to do what is right, moral, and responsible for their families, themselves, and towards society- independent of any oversight as it is theoretically not needed except in matters of maintaining order.


Just my observation in a nutshell...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to trucker777 again.

The only thing I would add is that the first group specifically tends to gravitate toward contrived 'rights' which are superficial or frivolous, or both in nature as opposed to the second group generally being proponents of bedrock constitutional rights.

 

[2A_Tom]

1 Samuel 13:19+20 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.

 

[Libertarian01]

Like all people with a general view those views come in different shades. There are many gun owners who want guns just to have them. Then there are those who think we need them to hunt wild game but don't really "need" AR-15's so they don't see a problem regulating and/or removing them. Then there are some who think that it is obvious that felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns, even though they have served their time. And there are still more who really are making up for some sort of self ego. Of course, there are many shades in between that I cannot possibly know or list here.

Some of the anti 2A really DO want to remove all firearms. They see things as safety outweighing an alleged "need" as justification. Those conscious of their desire to remove all firearms are very rare in my opinion.

Most, in my opinion, don't admit to themselves that they want to remove all firearms. Rather, they have witnessed something firsthand or in the news that pulled their heartstrings, such as a school shooting, and think, "If only so-and-so didn't have a gun those poor kids wouldn't have died. We need to stop that from ever happening again." Where they fail their logic class is by presuming that making an action a crime will automatically stop that action from happening. So that when they DO get some bans or regulations in place, such as Chicago or DC, they see little return on their "success." This will then compel them to not reconsider their original thought as flawed but rather to want to go even farther because obviously they didn't restrict things enough the first time.

It is in this mindset that I think most are fooling themselves - because deep down they know what they are saying won't work, but they don't want to admit that they are seeking an all out ban. Because IF they did, THEN they would be forced to look at the logical argument of firearms being used for self defense and defense against tyranny. As they don't want to paint themselves into that corner they lie to themselves in order to push for "less" even though deep down they know they will eventually need to push for "more."

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

Doug, I will stand by the idea that your post correctly represents rank and file participants in the push against the Second Amendment. Those in leadership roles within that movement have no such mistaken beliefs and are clearly functioning in the understanding that they cannot achieve the level of control they crave without disarming the people over whom they would lord arbitrary power.