Random thought of the day

If you listen to and read their propaganda closely you will notice gun control groups don’t say they seek lower violent crime rates. They seek things like:

  • “Common sense” gun regulation
  • Keeping guns away from people that should not have them
  • Protecting peoples “right” to feel safe

It should be clear from the things they don’t say that they know increased gun regulation does not make the world a safer place. And because of this you must conclude that whatever their agenda is it depends on the public at large being less safe from violent crime.

Such people should be prosecuted.

19 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. No references to “If it could save just one child” or is that just too 1999?

    • Hits too close to the subject of abortion. Maybe someone higher up in the Progressive movement figured that out.

      Consistent themes of Progressivism;

      Citizen disarmament.
      Government armament, incluiding the weaponisation of federal departments.
      Sharing military secrets and training tactics with America’s sworn enemies.
      The assertion that the human race is a threat to the planet.
      The assertion that there are billions too many people on Earth.
      The assertion that Americans consume an unfair percentage of the Earth’s resources.
      Limits to economic freedom.
      Limits to exploitation of natural resources.
      Active promotion of reliance on government for basic needs.
      Active recruiting of minorities into reliance on government for basic needs.
      Active promotion of sterilization programs and of abortion.
      Active promotion of government workers’ unions.
      Discourgement of private enterprize though “regulation” and labor laws.
      Attempts to monopolize government “education”.
      Sympathy for dictators abroad.
      Fascination with crime syndicates.
      Never-ending scare programs regarding the food supply.
      Attempts to monopolize the medical and drug industries.
      Attempts to monopolize transportation and discourage private transportation.
      Attempts to monopolize communication media.
      Control of the economy and culture through manipulation of the curency and crontrol of the banking industry.
      Ignoring crime-ridden cities and cities that have been gutted by Progressive policies.
      Peaceful teapartiers are terrorists while jihadists actively killing are engaging in “workplace violence”.
      American men who advocate liberty are waging a “War on Women” and are “homophobes” while Muslim cultures stoning women to death and killing homosexuals are a non-issue– They are given foreign aid.

      That’s a short list, and partially redundant. Add it up and find the consistent thread in all of it, and you will understand the current situation and the motivations that drive all of politics. I don’t have to spell it out any farther. I believe it speaks for itself.

      When asked what he thought we were up against, one candidate, a vet, the name of which escapes me, from another state, answered with four words; ” [pause] The Prince of Darkness?”

      Well that’s one way of putting it. You can come up with your own.

  2. I need to find the exact words, but Neil Smith expressed it roughly this way: the ONLY reason for someone wanting to disarm you is that he wants to be able to do something to you that he wouldn’t be able to do if you were armed and able to resist.

    • Exactly. More to the point; he wants you dead, and he intends to see it done.

      • Or maybe he thinks you are a total a**hole and he doesn’t trust you with anything sharper than a butter knife because he has no idea how you intend to use it?

          • It sure would be great if all the “total a**holes” would seek help but a lot of them don’t seem to get it.

          • Because discrimination against the mentally ill in terms of job employment is very much real, let alone the VA depriving PTSD vets of their 2nd Amendment rights.

            Find a way to stop those from happening and you might see people getting more help.

            In the meantime, I’ll gladly go armed to stop any nutcase that slips through the cracks. I just hope I never have to actually do so.

        • But then the proper response is to either arm yourself, or seek to disarm that *particular individual,* not everyone, generally.

        • “Or maybe he thinks you are a total a**hole and he doesn’t trust you with anything sharper than a butter knife because he has no idea how you intend to use it?”
          And thus he feels justified in sending agents of the state to restrict your rights and take your property?

          All without due process or the comission of a crime!
          (Again, if said asshole were actually a felon (or a fugitive) then the state would already have tools to deal with them.)

          Last I checked, assholes have the same rights as the rest of us.

          And if your solution is to simply have the state go after *everyone* well… there’s a word for that kind of state.

          • I LIKE being an asshole. The hours are good and there’s no heavy lifting.

            However, being an asshole doesn’t make me a danger to society.

            More importantly, having an absolute STRANGER who knows nothing about me strip away a civil right because he THINKS I am an asshole is unacceptable. Anyone that meglomaniacal _IS_, with their very actions proving it, a danger to society — what happens to the next “asshole” he doesn’t trust with some other right?

    • Here’s the closest L. Neil Smith option from WikiQuote (emphasis in original):

      Any politico who’s afraid of his constituents being armed, should be. Leaders of the anti-gun movement (for the most part, politicians who enthusiastically advocate confiscatory taxation and government control of everything) realize that a populace is much easier to herd, loot — and dispose of — if it has been stripped of its weapons. The naked fraud and transparent fascism of victim disarmament must be eradicated through the repeal of all gun laws at every level of government.”

      The one I have in my book, though, I pulled from commenter Rob Crawford over at Shall Not Be Questioned last year:

      “No one with good intentions wants to disarm other people; only those who know their actions will be resisted want to render people unable to resist.”

      I have no idea if those were his own words, or paraphrased or copied from someone/somewhere else, but it states the point quite nicely, I think.

      • It’s like those that are peeping about how the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.

        While I apreciate their honesty and their admission that they’ve got to go through with Amending the Constitution…

        It also means they intend to do things that would be flagrantly unconstitutional.

        Which is either a fear that things like private sale bans, AWBs, mag, and carry bans may acutally unconstitutional.

        Or if they think all of the above is consitutional… then they want to go even further.

  3. They do not say such things because it then becomes an explicit metric by which they can be judged.

    Remember how often they’ve said “there will be shoot-outs over fender-benders” and how “blood will run in the streets” every time a state considered becoming a “Shall-Issue” state? Well, in every single case, they’ve been proven to be wrong: There have been no increases in firearms violence in those states, and in some, major drops (probably unrelated, but they invalidate the theory of increased violence).

    That’s why they’ve gone with very carefully crafted generic statements, then effects of which, if implemented, can’t be measured. It’s clever marketing to ensure that they can’t be proven wrong by actual data about firearms deaths or injuries. We’ve been beating them with that particular stick for a couple of decades now, ever since the push for Shall-Issue, and especially in the last 10 years with the federal Assault Weapons Ban expiring and there not being any increase in homicides.

    They *KNOW* they lose on actual data-driven arguments and logic. So they go with a vague emotional argument that can’t be measured. It’s really all they have, at this point.

    • “…and in some, major drops (probably unrelated…” — no, in fact quite related. See “More guns, less Crime” by John Lott for all the details.

  4. Pingback: The narrative is... because they know. | The Gun Feed

Comments are closed.