The Great Gun Grab...not the how, but WHY?

[Ben Towe]

My thought on reasons is this: When it comes to the anti-gun general populace, most honestly believe that these measure will make a difference. They are genuine in this belief and they simply don't understand that it won't. A few elitists may be well aware that it won't but the majority believes that it will.

Most anti politicians are a far different animal. They are guided by an agenda and this is only one part of it. They know full well that this will help nothing. It is only a means to more control. I would be willing to bet that if you had been a fly on the wall in the back rooms of Washington, in the hours after Newtown, you would have have been mortified by the reactions you would have witnessed. I'm sure there was a lot of giggling and back slapping going on.

Did you ever see that miniseries called Political Animals? That's what these people are. They aren't humans in the sense that you and I are. They have adopted an ethos in line with a political ideal and that's what they strive for every waking hour. Nothing else matters. They will never be convinced, because they already know the truth and they simply do not care!

Those that have flipped from a formerly pro gun stance are, for the most part, reacting to emotion and may once again regain a grip on themselves and realize that tools don't commit crimes.

[doofus47]

Rest assured, when it comes, it will be for the 'greater good.'

Currently, we have a bunch of politicians making political hay while the sun is shining on the topic of guns. Most homes don't possess firearms, so it's easy to stereotype and easy to suggest bans.

Most citizens don't know nor care what they are missing (much like I don't give a hoot about Ipad applications--I don't own one); they believe what they are fed and the ideas that bans will make them safer is appealing.

I don't believe that there's a grand conspiracy amongst most anti-gun politicians to put down the common man. I don't believe that they plan that far ahead. (Some, yes.) Unfortunately, neither do they look backwards very well to see that there's an historical reason the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. All they would have to do is look over recent events in Syria and Libya to realize that "the greater good" would be a society in which citizens always have final veto power over their governments.

[DocCasualty]

by pax

Some of it is projection . . .

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I too do not believe that every anti-gunner shares one single reason for their beliefs, as not all pro-gun folks do either.

I do believe that some of the most influential "anti" movers and shakers are motivated by a fundamentally flawed philosophy that believes you can legislate a perfect world and in their view banning guns would ultimately lead to the end of gun and other violence, as guns would be only in the hands of LE and the military. Actually, their misguided view goes well beyond firearms in their attempts to legislate this perfect world and I think many if not most of the laws that have been passed over the better part of the last century illustrate this. I ascribe purely evil motives toward highly restrictive gun control or outright banning of guns for the purpose of "control of the masses" to a small minority of the antis who wield some power. I believe most truly believe they are involved in some crusade for the greater good, regardless of how wrong they are.

I have read that approximately 25% of the voting US population is pro-gun, maybe 25% is anti-gun and the remaining ~ 50% is fairly neutral (I have no idea of how legitimate these numbers are and would be happy to see any stats anybody has to clarify this but think it isn't far off the mark). These continued assaults on 2A rights represent at any given time what form of gun ban/control those who wish to impose them believe they can politically sell to the "uncommitted" voting populace, who largely believe more or less in the 2nd Amendment. In this sense I do believe it is a divide and conquer mentality, with the ultimate goal remaining of total gun ban, or at least a de facto ban, paying lip-service to the 2nd Amendment for the "greater good". A substantial number of politicians merely are riding the wave at any given moment for there political career, with a fair percentage truly committed one way or the other.

Remember how the Brady folks focused on handguns? If you look at how people die because of firearm violence in the US, that argument at least on its face value might make some sense, but guess what? That agenda has failed for them as John Q public isn't ready to give up their handguns and rightfully so. That's why we have seen for the better part of the last 20 years a move to ban semi-auto firearms with detachable mags and/or limit mag size, which does include many, if not most pistols. They have made a lot of hay out of highly publicized, isolated tragedies when in reality these unfortunate deaths are a proverbial "blip" on the screen. I would bet there is nobody here who doesn't know an intelligent person who owns guns for shooting, hunting or self-defense who doesn't back some form of ban on "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines because they have bought into the "there's no legitimate reason for any law abiding person to own these" mantra.

This is what we are up against IMHO and this is where we need to focus. It is that middle ground of fairly uncommitted citizens, many who are gun owners we need to convince that there are those who are out to ban guns, and that may eventually lead to a ban on theirs. I ultimately look to the 2nd Amendment as a saving grace for us, though the limits of how far that will protect us has yet to be determined. I've looked at laws in other Western countries and many still have reasonable gun privileges, but we need to continue to work to assure our gun rights.

[TDL]

My thought on reasons is this: When it comes to the anti-gun general populace, most honestly believe that these measure will make a difference. They are genuine in this belief and they simply don't understand that it won't. A few elitists may be well aware that it won't but the majority believes that it will.

Most anti politicians are a far different animal. They are guided by an agenda and this is only one part of it. They know full well that this will help nothing. It is only a means to more control.

Ben I worked in politics and PR most of my life and your take is exactly correct.
I would only refine it to say the ends for most politicians isn't necessarily more "control" it is simply diversion and scapegoating for a problem. Profligate and increasing spending isn't the problem, the 1% are. Felons on the streets aren't the problem, legal gun owners are.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by TDL

. . . .Felons on the streets aren't the problem, legal gun owners are.

I'm puzzled by this statement. Is it your belief that felons aren't the problem, but that legal gun owners are? Or are you stating that politicians take that position? If the latter, what could be the point in taking that position, if not simply to assume more control & power?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TDL is pointing out that politicians like to divert away from the cause - using a sarcastic twist.

Not to speak for him but politicians want to blame guns rather than the illegal users of such.

Honest scholars point out that most gun crime in the USA is driven by social chaos and the drug war trade in poorer neighborhoods. This leads to most gun felonies. Why are little girls who go the Inaugaration shot? The gun didn't do it. It was someone in that community who thought it was acceptable behavior to shoot at her.

But to deal with that reality is not politically acceptable. Thus the gun is to blame.

But dealing with larger societal problems that generate most gun crime is not something any side of the political spectrum wants to deal with for various reasons.

Gun horrors by rampage folks come out of a different causal nature and are mostly irrelevant to most gun crime.

[BlueTrain]

Yes, a very interesting theory. Totally baseless but interesting nevertheless.

Would you describe any country that had a queen as a matriachial society?