National Another Honest Liberal Pours Cold Water on Gun Control

[DB is Here]

Another Honest Liberal Pours Cold Water on Gun Control

My collection of liberals who are honest on the issue of gun control is expanding. In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In hi…

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com

Read More

 

[Aero Denezol]

Great read, thank you.

Gun crime is down overall. Guns are here to stay, and going after gun control is political suicide. Some of the intellectual elite have come to their senses re: gun control. But many idiots who are not in possession of the facts, who have no interest in learning, and who have a visceral/emotional reaction to the mere mention of firearms, would eagerly vote to ban anything, anytime, anywhere. We all know people like this from our own lives! All it takes is some demagogue to lead them by the nose. We need to steal a page from the wokescolds and quash the stupid talk every time we hear it.

 

[DB is Here]

Also, it seems confiscation failure has been a common theme...worldwide in all Western Societies.

 

[User 1234]

They don't care if it will be a failure, whether it is effective, or whether law abiding people can defend themselves. It is a culture war and a power struggle plain and simple. They want to make everyone dependent on the government for protection, health care, and indoctrination.

 

[Hueco]

I asked on another site for the train of logic that led for the Mini-14 Tactical to be a banned weapon, but the Mini-14 (not-tactical) exempted for use in the newest proposed assault weapon ban.

...

...

Yea, I'm still waiting.

I'm frustrated that these two question are not a part of the gun ban discussion:
1. Sure, it makes sense that if object A did not exist, then no one would be killed by object A. What is the likelihood that today's would-be killer using object A would be tomorrow's killer using object B?

2. If we take the absolute minimum number of estimated defensive uses of a firearm (500k), what do you say to those people when they no longer have the ability to protect themselves and fall victim to the crime they would have stopped?

Anyone proposing a gun ban who isn't addressing these questions hasn't really thought about their proposal.

 

[Aero Denezol]

They don't care if it will be a failure, whether it is effective, or whether law abiding people can defend themselves. It is a culture war and a power struggle plain and simple. They want to make everyone dependent on the government for protection, health care, and indoctrination.

^^^Yes 100%. I think that's what the game plan is at the top, in the war room, where the strategy is drawn up. At the foot soldier level, the useful idiots with their clipboards and t-shirts actually believe they are doing a public good by "keeping people safe"

 

[Jonnyuma]

I'm frustrated that these two question are not a part of the gun ban discussion:

Play this game long enough and you'll see that there IS no discussion. The civilian disarmament enthusiasts are tired of talking and attempting to justify themselves (never were much good at either) and many have just quit dancing around the issue.... they go straight to a 100% ban of privately owned firearms and endorsing confiscation.

Throwing out facts and undoctored statistics, pointing out hypocrisy and the many levels of civil rights violations involved, or the futility of attempting to disarm 120,000,000+ legal gun owners (even if only 1% assume the role of civil disobedience/non-compliance, that's still an insurmountable number) and prosecute/jail them (doubles current prison population), asking exactly WHO will be kicking-down doors, confiscating 400,000,000 firearms (u know, give or take a dozen million) and lastly (just getting started, really) where and who is gonna get to store and destroy these confiscated arms, safely store and insure temporarily confiscated arms under "Red Flag" laws?

"We have to do something"...aaand back to square one.

The barroom anti-gunner will sometimes engage. The end-all argument is, "If there weren't any guns, nobody woulda got shot".

The politicians, however, are even less "nuanced"... they have a plan for us and it DOES NOT include the possibility of armed citizens.

Unfortunately neither can be swayed from their position any more than I can. Big difference is the end-game... one is a Utopian dreamer, the other is a nefariously pragmatic totalitarian w some juice.