National Why Take Guns?

[Aero Denezol]

Lots of good answers here

IMO they want to aggressively seize control of the cultural zeitgeist, without fear of retribution. They know if they otherwise displace too many people too quickly there will be some real problems. Take the guns away, and they can effectively ignore and legislate us into complete irrelevance.

"They" are the utilitarian socialist elite who have been around since Lenin and contrary to popular opinion did not go away after the collapse of the USSR.

 

[nammac]

I'll take a stab at why...

Because an armed populace has the capability to forcefully rebel against and remove the sitting government. Theoretically...

Because an unarmed populace is nothing more than subjects to the government task masters whims, or in this case billionaires task master whims... No theory here, this is factual...

If we refuse to stand up and fight, then we get what we deserve, we get to be subjects and not citizens...

Seems we have a choice to make... At the ballot box... And at the end of the barrel of a gun...

What will you do?

 

[OldBroad44]

Those in power usually prefer the peons, serfs, and/or slaves to be disarmed. That way there is a much larger gap between the powerful and the unpowerful, and the powerless can be treated any way the powerful want. I think in most of Europe knights and noblemen were allowed swords, but not peasants. And often peasants could own oxen but not horses that provided more serious mobility and freedom. When the British conquered the Scottish, they forbade them swords and other real weapons. That's why the Scotts invented blackthorn walking sticks that could be claimed to just be walking sticks but were actually also lethal weapons. As of the beginning of WWII, Russia drafted farmers to be snipers. Many were very good because all they had been allowed as farmers were single shot rifles to protect their livestock and hunt with. Nobody else was allowed guns at all. Furthermore, disarmed peasants may be stripped of rights or property, enslaved, or allowed to actually starve to death. Armed peasants may rebel.

 

[GUNARCHER]

The term "useful idiots' fits--the gun controllers probably just want a gun free life--but the next step after that is not theirs.
The corruption in government is profitable and would progress immensely without an active and armed populace.

 

[Diamondback]

History has long shown that those whom a given class would enslave or exterminate, they first disarm.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

History has long shown that those whom a given class would enslave or exterminate, they first disarm.

To do otherwise would be foolhardy.

 

[Diamondback]

To do otherwise would be foolhardy.

Didn't Hitler say exactly that?

If you support Gun Control, you might as well start learning how to goose-step to the Horst Wessel.

 

[OldBroad44]

The Scottish Highland part of my family tree has the motto "Touche not a catte bott a targe." "Targe" meant a piece of leather, leather-covered shield, or glove, so there are a number of possible translations. I like "Don't touch the cat without a glove." (Without protection of some sort.)The cat of Clan Chatten was just a wild cat. A relatively small predator, but untameable. It suits me. As a human female, I'm a long way from the biggest or most powerful predator in the woods. And I can be attacked and maybe killed. But I cannot be attacked without risk. I should not be attacked with impunity. Unarmed citizens, through history, are frequently abused and treated with complete contempt, with impunity. As armed citizens, if attacked, even if outnumbered and outgunned, we just might take some of our attackers with us. We armed citizens cannot be attacked with impunity.

 

[Medic!]

Your not gona like my answer.


Many Men today are threatened by guns. And all things masculine.
They don't want to admit aggressive behavior still has a place in this world.

Guns. And the need to sometimes use force. Are a threat to there masculinity.
Which is strange? Since they have almost none. [Or any desire to develop more].

Guns just make them feel uncomfortable. And weak.

What if with all these guns being around. They finds themselves ''put upon'' to use one?
Perhaps to defend this country, or a loved one?

They know there not up to the task!
And why should they feel inadequate?

No. In their mind it's best if all the guns are just gone. And there relieved of there duty to Protect anybody, or anything.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Your not gona like my answer.


Many Men today are threatened by guns. And all things masculine.
They don't want to admit aggressive behavior still has a place in this world.

Guns. And the need to sometimes use force. Are a threat to there masculinity.
Which is strange? Since they have almost none. [Or any desire to develop more].

Guns just make them feel uncomfortable. And week.

What if with all these guns being around. They finds themselves ''put upon'' to use one?
Perhaps to defend this country, or a loved one?

They know there not up to the task!
And why should they feel inadequate?

No. In there mind it's best if all the guns are just gone. And there relieved of there duty to Protect anybody, or anything.

Ah yes, the wussification factor. I'm sure it's playing into this travesty as well.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Didn't Hitler say exactly that?

If you support Gun Control, you might as well start learning how to goose-step to the Horst Wessel.

If he didn't say it he still damned sure did it, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Why, Take Guns ?

Why are all of these politicians and Billionaires spending millions to take our guns?

Because even with all of their high walls, private jets and bodyguards, they are only a quarter ounce of high velocity lead away from loosing it all. They are safer if us pheasants are unarmed.

 

[Medic!]

Why, Take Guns ?

Why are all of these politicians and Billionaires spending millions to take our guns?

Because even with all of their high walls, private jets and bodyguards, they are only a quarter ounce of high velocity lead away from loosing it all. They are safer if us pheasants are unarmed.

No truer words have been spoken.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

They are safer if us pheasants are unarmed.

I must confess that the idea of armed pheasants does concern me a bit...

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

That is what I get for posting from my phone.

I call for a ban on full-auto correct.

 

[Heyjoe]

THAT they want control is plenty for me to not give a damn about why, regardless of the who.

ask my parents about what control of me looked like during adolesence.

Control over individuals besides one's self is evil, is counter to the intentions of the founders and is counter to the teachings of the good book.

 

[turbo_vanner]

technically you cant get shot if nobody has guns. Maybe their thought process just stops there.

 

[Ownerus]

....
Many Men today are threatened by guns. And all things masculine.





They don't want to admit aggressive behavior still has a place in this world.

Guns. And the need to sometimes use force. Are a threat to there masculinity.
Which is strange? Since they have almost none. [Or any desire to develop more].

Guns just make them feel uncomfortable. And week......

An on point essay on just this from 16 years ago..

Julia Gorin

 

[41mag]

quote from decades past: "a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject"

Simplistic? Yes....yet the essence is clear.

 

[shibbershabber]

After the guns are gone, then they can tax us all into oblivion in the name of pet causes like global warming, social justice, or whatever the feel good progressive topic of the week is. Of course, when they tax us then it will be at gun point.

Don't They do that already?

They waste our money... And enforce tax payment with jailtime, which is essentially at the point of a of gun.