The Sinister Side of Gun-Control [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Sinister Side of Gun-Control


Fear Night
12-17-2012, 08:19
**Tinfoil hats for all 'yee who enter here. You have been warned!**

I would say that the vast majority of the general public believe that the government has our best interests at heart. They believe that Obama and the anti-gunners are truly just trying to make us safer with the end goal of eliminating guns completely. Others believe there is a more sinister motive for eliminating gun ownership.

A brief look at history can quickly tell you the consequences of giving up gun ownership. It gives the government unprecedented power over the people. It enables them to continue to erode the rest of the rights that you used to possess. At the very extreme, it enables them to round up their own citizens on trains shipped off to death camps. We can be fairly certain that if they took the 2A, the rest would eventually follow.

I wouldn't say I buy into conspiracy theories that say our world leaders are just puppets behind a bigger organization. But I do know this, and it is something we can all agree on. Governments want power. They want the power to rule, power to tax and seize, power to do whatever they want, without any consequences. Especially consequences of an armed resistance.

Anti-gunners always fire back at gun rights with, "you don't need that semi-auto for hunting!" "There is no reason for anybody to NEED gun XYZ." These people are missing the point. The founding fathers intended for us to be able to prevent tyranny. How are we supposed to be able to stop tyranny with single shot rimfires and no access to ammunition? Do you not realize that we are on your side on this issue too? You don't want tyranny, trust me. We need to convince the anti-gunners, and the general public, that we are on their side in the fight against tyranny. Nobody wants tyranny except the tyrants. It is something that almost every American would resist.

Of course, they will just say tyranny could never happen here, then go back to sticking their head in a hole and continue the complacency.

We need to stand up for the rights intended by our founding fathers. They saw it first hand, so I'm pretty sure they are the authority on the subject, not us. Thanks for reading :wavey:

ModGlock17
12-17-2012, 08:24
Gun control is not about Guns, but about CONTROL.

A walk in history about Chairman Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. and we will find that prior to governments murdering their own people, these rulers forced their people to give up guns.

pipedreams
12-17-2012, 08:44
Gun control is not about Guns, but about CONTROL.


This +1000

‘An Armed Man Is a Citizen. A Disarmed Man is a Subject’

marchboom
12-17-2012, 10:20
99% of the time the people who want gun control also have no problem with the gov't having total control of us. Just look at who voted for the traitor obama. They don't care that our rights (any of them) are taken away. The Constitution is an obstacle to them. It is outdated.

Before the obama regime (that now includes the Supreme Court) takes away OUR guns they had better consult with the gun owners.

We the people, will decide whether we will be disarmed, not the gov't.

And if taking away guns from law abiding citizens is such a good idea, then I think the cops should set the example by giving up their guns first. You know, to set a good example. Lets start with the Secret Service.

cowboy1964
12-17-2012, 14:31
Does anyone really believe that once hi-caps are banned, then semi-autos, they would just stop there?

Fear Night
12-17-2012, 14:35
Does anyone really believe that once hi-caps are banned, then semi-autos, they would just stop there?
Definitely not. The rights will be slowly eroded away in small segments. Slowly boiling the frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).

The anti-gunners know they have to take it slow. Each emotional event after another, they will try to sneak through more and more restrictions, until there is nothing left. They even freely admit their end goal is a 100% ban on anything and everything that launches a projectile.

GAFinch
12-17-2012, 18:59
If anyone is stupid enough to turn in anything to a full-blown Marxist on the eve of an economic collapse probably shouldn't own a gun anyway.

English
12-18-2012, 06:22
Prior to the Dunblane mass murder, in which children and teachers were killed, we in the UK had Hungerford where another nutty young man walked around shooting people for a couple of hours. He shot them with some kind of self loading rifle and the government's response was to ban self loading rifles for everyone. This was in spite of the fact that he never shot anyone more than once - he was a good shot. He could have done just as much harm with a single shot bolt action but never mind, the oportunity was there and the civil servants had their legislation preprepared and it was introduced and passed with great solemnity.

A tragedy should never be allowed to go to waste!

English

marchboom
12-18-2012, 10:17
Doesn't matter whether or not an anti-gun law is effective. What matters is, "Does the law make you feel good?"

That's the test liberal politicians use.

The only thing politicians can do to make me feel good is to get out of my life.

aircarver
12-18-2012, 10:29
The last election showed us: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers" ... :frown:

.