These gang members didn’t have too hard a time getting around New Jersey’s gun laws. More than that, though, your typical gang member isn’t known for being some kind of master criminal.
In other words, if they can get guns, anyone can get guns.
…
When it comes to gun control, the only ones really slowed down by the law are good, decent, law-abiding citizens who are trying to walk the straight and narrow path. The criminals, on the other hand, will find a way around it without much challenge. Most probably won’t even realize a new law was passed.
Tom Knighton
August 12, 2021
Gang Members Don’t Seem Bothered By New Jersey Gun Laws
[It’s easier to believe this is all according to plan rather than the politicians are that stupid and/or ignorant after so many decades of no evidence that gun control makes the general population safer.
I am nearly convinced it’s about creating a safe work environment for the politicians and their comrades, the criminals. This is well-known. Read The Gulag Archipelago. The USSR regarded thieves as allies in the building of communism because they were the enemy of property owners. Why should our modern day socialists behave any differently?—Joe]
Yep, property owners are the enemy today. Tenents don’t need to pay rent. Defending your property likely will get you charged. Even defending yourself or family on your property may get you charged. Shoplifters are free to take what they want without fear of being charged.
So now we live in a catch 22 world and are following the same general path as the USSR in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Tenants do have to pay rent if the landlord is a communist member of congress.
Also, we have the de-moralizing factor at work. It’s a lie that everyone knows is a lie. Doesn’t work, never has worked. And never will work. The lie is so in your face. It forces you feel powerless against it.
Next they trot out a few horror stories of those that violated their lie. While their friends rape, rob, and pillage. No bail required.
The big problem, is that it works.
Most people will get on the cattle car because the law sez so. And someone in a uniform told them to. It seems a toss up wither the commies can actually pull it off. But either way.
Looks like it’s Americas turn in the barrel.
Yes. As I posted a little while back on my own blog:
“Nearly convinced”? At what point, after centuries of consistent evidence, and virtually no counter evidence, does one actually know something, as opposed to merely suspecting it or having a hunch or theory? What’s the standard for taking something as fact. Proof beyond all doubt, proof beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, or “this is what makes me feel good”?
Surely the pro gun rights evidence is stronger that the evidence for, say, evolution of all species from a single life form, or a very small number of life forms, starting with abiogenesis. Yet look at how many people, including practically all leftists, absolutely believe in that theory without having but the sketchiest of evidence disseminated through some clever writing. People believe it knowing little to nothing about cellular biology, bio-chemistry, or the systems of replicating, interpreting and expressing DNA, such that their belief informs their very understanding of the world and everything in it, and furthermore their belief is so unshakable that they’ll reject, sometimes with anger and threats, and even actual retribution, any hint of counter-evidence to that theory.
No, Young Grasshopper; we are not a scientific, or a logical, or rational species, dedicated to the solemn pursuit of truth, come what may, so as to live by truth. Instead we will defend our beliefs, no matter how carelessly or selfishly acquired, and no matter the evidence or the possible alternative interpretations of evidence, with dismissal, anger and even violence and mass murder. We’re often, even repeatedly, convinced that such evil behavior is what the “smart people” do. We’re convinced that it’s in our “self-interest”, and furthermore that self-interest is a valid, even superior substitute for righteousness.
Interestingly, the alternative to “self interest”, that’s offered up to us as its opposite, is collectivism; the sacrifice of individual freedom of conscience to the false idol of “The Common Good”. And so we can operate for our self interest, which somehow or other (it doesn’t matter how) becomes its opposite, the common good. Truth becomes forgotten altogether in the framework of that dialectic, and to even mention it often results in sarcasm or attacks (“your truth” verses “my truth”, etc., and so what is truth anyway but a man-made construct, thus subject to redefinition by man-made construct?). Such is the state of the world, until the end.
No one wants the truth. The truth makes us feel icky, and anyway it’s a crime against the state power system.
I’m convinced the nearly all the higher ups know gun control does not make the general population safer from violence crime. I’m not entirely convinced the gun control advocacy is primarily to protect politicians/criminals from being shot by their victims.
The primary motivation, for at least some, may be to change the culture to one of dependence rather than independence. Or it may be that for some it polls well and they give their voters what they want in order to acquire power and/or remain in power. Or there could be any number of other things.
However in recent years, and the last year in particular, the protection of the criminal class has risen to very near the top of my list of their probable motives. I’m not entirely convinced, yet, but I can make a strong case for it.
The other purpose is, as they saying goes, to do things to us that couldn’t be done safely if we still retained our weapons.
That reason can be seen clearly at work in the gun confiscation activities of Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and the Taliban.
Facts and dilalectic will not convince those who are are not already convinces. Must use rhetoric. Hit them in the feels. Asking about vax status puts you where on this list of the Ten Stages of Genocide? Requiring a vax for some jobs puts you where?
https://i.redd.it/2wcx2hb9m8611.jpg
I’m a teacher, and they are requiring taking the Vax as a submission into the Church of the Branch Covidians now to keep my job. NO. Fire me, see you in court.
Hmmm…..I have always assigned “the experts’ ” support of gun control as primarily a control issue – take away the tools that might be used against you as a self-protective measure which also increases public dependence upon your claimed skill set – and secondarily as deeply rooted false beliefs in fantasies because the fantasies feel so much better than reality (reality, for some, can become oppressive after a while, and fanstasies, in multiple forms (movies; television; novels; drugs; alcohol; religions, in the form of manufactured dieties; simple mental collapse) offer solace. For the normal, a brief respite via a book or show rejuvenates, for the abnormal greater, and often, increasing and/or stronger, doses are required).
However, despite the obvious and glaring example of Chicago, I did not consider an alliance between criminal activity and political activity a probability. Possible, sure, but only in severely controlled, i.e., one-to-one relationships between a “bent” Joe the Alderman or Mannie the Corrupt Cop, and Bad Bart the Drug Kingpin, conducted for personal benefit; that it’s a widespread cross-cultural phenomenon, conducted for mutual benefit of parallel, and inter-related, larger, and more functionally organized, segments of an organized society seemed unrealistic.
Given what’s been going on in Washington, and other areas of society, over the past several years I think I’m going to have to revise my opinion. There may be wider and deeper inter-relationships at work that I had not considered.
Anyone know of reliable studies, or solid evidence, that might shed more light on the issue?
there are feedback loops, equilibria, or resonances, whatever you want to call them, observable in natural phenomena. It would be foolish to assert that such things do not happen in human behavior.
“Baptist-and-bootlegger alliances” are but one example. “Priming the pump” of the economy is another.
Regulatory capture.
Revolving doors between government and lobbying.
Perhaps revolving doors between government (including the military) and media.
Marriages between government and media figures.
“When it comes to gun control, the only ones really slowed down by the law are good, decent, law-abiding citizens who are trying to walk the straight and narrow path.”
In other words, people with active consciences and self-control.
Those who lack those faculties can and do obtain weapons, exactly the wrong sort of people to have them.
I wonder if this argument could be employed in the courts?