OT-The real reson for government gun bans

[Jason_W]

What do you think they are?

While others may disagree with me, I don't think the armed citizen poses much of a military threat to the governemnt. We have rifles, they have cluster bombs and Apache Helicopters.

My theory is that guns are a threat not only as a tool that facilitates self reliance and self sufficientcy, but as a symbol that represents those two things. Self reliance is the biggest threat to government since a self reliant populace doesn't need the government, and as we all know, governemnt ultimately becomes an entity that exists only to perpetuate itself.

We currently have a system where there is a symbiotic relationship between corporations and government. It's good for the corp/gov marriage to have a populace consisting of dependent zombies who exist only to work, sleep, and consume.

How do guns come into play here? Well, an armed citizen doesn't need the government for protection, and if that citizen also has access to a chunk of land he doesn't need the corporations for food. As a side note, how many Americans still know how to grow their food?

This is just a theory I'm starting to form. I might expand it into a larger essay. Maybe a 21st century version of Thoreau's "Self Reliance".

[J Miller]

Jason,

I'm sorry to tell you that you are just a bit late. Your theory is not a theory, it's a fact.


Joe

[Jason_W]

Jason,

I'm sorry to tell you that you are just a bit late. Your theory is not a theory, it's a fact.


Joe

I thought that as well. I just didn't want to start the thread so negatively.

It's sad when you really examine what we've given up as a society, and that they were largely surrendered for a handful of creature comforts.

[Dastook]

This is just a theory I'm starting to form. I might expand it into a larger essay. Maybe a 21st century version of Thoreau's "Self Reliance".

It may be a theory, but it is one I agree with.

[Jason_W]

When I look at my generation and those younger, I realize that except for the occasional, notable exception, we are vapid, entitled and useless.

Should the grid ever go down, we'll die en masse.

I don't completely exempt myself from the above statements.

[bogus bill]

I would also throw in the thought that traditionly the people that arent armed and dont like guns are usually liberal demicrats and its also a ploy to get votes from the uneducated group.
And as far as the goverment haveing all kinds of firepower and nukes anyway, these people still are exposed walking around campaigning etc.

[gamekeeper]

Personally I wouldn't discount the "military" threat. We know that governments have much more firepower but you only have to look at history to see what a few well armed citizens can do to hold up Political progress. The USA has more than a few well armed citizens, always has. That's why you fly the Stars & Stripes and not the Union Jack!

The other part of your Theory is also, I'm afraid, quite possibly true!

[Modoc ED]

What do you think they are?

While others may disagree with me, I don't think the armed citizen poses much of a military threat to the governemnt. We have rifles, they have cluster bombs and Apache Helicopters.

You put too little faith in the armed citizen regardless of the country they are in. Viet Nam ring a bell. They had great determination and a purpose and in the end they didn't do too bad for not having cluster bombs and Apache Helicopters.

The armed citizen is always a force to be respected and reconed with. Much more powerful than most realize.

[Ysabel Kid]

Personally I wouldn't discount the "military" threat. We know that governments have much more firepower but you only have to look at history to see what a few well armed citizens can do to hold up Political progress. The USA has more than a few well armed citizens, always has. That's why you fly the Stars & Stripes and not the Union Jack!

The other part of your Theory is also, I'm afraid, quite possibly true!

+1

Jason, your theory, as Joe notes, is indeed "fact". However, the armed free man is always a danger to an oppressive state. With a lever, for example, and a little patience, I can obtain a fully-automatic weapon from an oppressive soldier. With that, I can obtain a RPG or Stinger. With that I can obtain, you get the drift. In the times of war, simply armed folks usually "trade up" as soon as they can - they just need that first chance, and any firearm makes that easier.

Rugged individualism is the exact opposite of the socialist state. That is why the Democrat Party platform is in favor of ever-more oppressive gun control - because they are socialists. Ever notice that no gun control laws ever work, and their answer is always more gun control laws? That is because the objective is not "crime control" - it is disarming people to make it easier for "people control".

[Jason_W]

Rugged individualism is the exact opposite of the socialist state. That is why the Democrat Party platform is in favor of ever-more oppressive gun control - because they are socialists. Ever notice that no gun control laws ever work, and their answer is always more gun control laws? That is because the objective is not "crime control" - it is disarming people to make it easier for "people control".

I don't dispute this, but are the republican's really all that different? They seem more like a different side of the same coin.

[Jeeps]

Rugged individualism is the exact opposite of the socialist state. That is why the Democrat Party platform is in favor of ever-more oppressive gun control - because they are socialists. Ever notice that no gun control laws ever work, and their answer is always more gun control laws? That is because the objective is not "crime control" - it is disarming people to make it easier for "people control".

I don't dispute this, but are the republican's really all that different? They seem more like a different side of the same coin.

NONE OF THEM ARE TO BE TOTALLY TRUSTED, Hence our Bill of Rights, It was
written to lay the foundation of a truly FREE nation. If any part of it gets dented
then we no longer have a free nation, which is where we stand today.

[El Chivo]

The first thing Adolf Hitler did was start gun control

[handirifle]

I agree with all the above, and while it was just a movie, the old movie "Red Dawn" is a good example of what ysabel is talking about. If united, even into bands of determined individuals, we'd be a real force to be dealt with.

One I'm sure HillObama (and MANY others like them) would rather not have to deal with on our terms.

[donw]

IMHO...the govt (all levels, federal, state county,etc) fear for THEIR own saftey. why else do they exclude law enforcment personel from not having ar-15's, .50 BMG BA rifles, etc? (that pertains mostly to kaliphornia)

barrett has it right...refuse to sell to or service any one who outlaws any product they produce. as an example, if i owned a business that sold ammo, firearms and the city i was located in passed an anti-gun ordinance, i would refuse to supply ammo, firearms, service or training for any of their agencies.

if dealers would start doing that on a wide scale, i'd wager there would be a change in attitude amongst legislators.

i find it to be sardonically humourous that a state, county, city etc can demand that i, by way of taxation, pay them to enforce laws i disapprove of by way of using tools I MAY NOT HAVE. (such as an ar-15 here in kaliphornia)

BTW: the "red dawn" may not be far away if we're not careful...

[PPpastordon]

What do you think they are?

While others may disagree with me, I don't think the armed citizen poses much of a military threat to the governemnt. We have rifles, they have cluster bombs and Apache Helicopters.

My theory is that guns are a threat not only as a tool that facilitates self reliance and self sufficientcy, but as a symbol that represents those two things. Self reliance is the biggest threat to government since a self reliant populace doesn't need the government, and as we all know, governemnt ultimately becomes an entity that exists only to perpetuate itself.

We currently have a system where there is a symbiotic relationship between corporations and government. It's good for the corp/gov marriage to have a populace consisting of dependent zombies who exist only to work, sleep, and consume.

How do guns come into play here? Well, an armed citizen doesn't need the government for protection, and if that citizen also has access to a chunk of land he doesn't need the corporations for food. As a side note, how many Americans still know how to grow their food?

This is just a theory I'm starting to form. I might expand it into a larger essay. Maybe a 21st century version of Thoreau's "Self Reliance".

Interesting. However, the real reason is that government is (or, "was?") neither necessary, nor as God intended our way of life to be. To find out more, find a Bible and for the history, read all of the book named Judges. Then read the first 8 chapters of the next book, 1 Samuel, which is about the people wanting their own government, which in Israel's case was a king.
Grace and Peace,

[cjm135]

Here's the reason. It's for your own good.

Headline: Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=59674

If you believe that I have some......for sale.

[KWK]

I don't think individuals with sporters will stop an invader. Extermination is the proven answer to such rebellions, if the invader has the stomach for it.

In modern democracies, armed rebellion is a very serious threat to the government. Citizens shooting at government agents completely undermines the government's claim to represent The People.

For the common "liberal", individuals defending themselves is probably just untidy. They have complete faith in the gov't to solve all life's problems. For them, individuals with guns can only create crime, not solve it.

[gon2shoot]

It's been rumored that there are guns in my county with no paper trail and I just bought 40 acres
I dont know where you get your ideas

[ursavus.elemensis]

I'm all for the Second Ammendment, and and I am all against gun restrictions. I'm for citizens owning real firepower. But I've got a good buddy who is 100% conservative Republican (like me...) but he has served for like 15 years in the U.S. Army. His opinion, while generally being pro-gun is that the U.S. Military is far and away superior beyond any threat that any citizen or group of citizens or coalition of citizens can put together. If it ever came down to it, and the Army decided to fight the citizens, they'd demolish the citizens. They're not going to have a target competition with you for a trophy. You shoot at them, they're going to blow up your house. My level three armor is not going to keep a tank shell from coming in through the picture window of the living room. That's his view and since I've never been in the military, and he has, I'm going with his view. Doesn't mean that if they come up my driveway that I'm going to walk out the door with a pitcher of lemonade and some sugar cookies, no, far from it, but I'm not expecting the citizens to fight off the U.S. Army and get anywhere but dead. And, I'll bet that exact point comes up at the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments over the D.C. gun ban.

[AJMD429]

While others may disagree with me, I don't think the armed citizen poses much of a military threat to the governemnt. We have rifles, they have cluster bombs and Apache Helicopters.

Keep in mind that tyranny and oppression do NOT usually involve the military type weapons, because unlike wars between nations, oppressive governments usually DON'T want to destroy their own infrastructure, and DO usually want to selectively exterminate people of races or religions they don't like, and people with any self-sufficient abilities, or people of above average intelligence. Look at the Chinese 'cultural revolution' to see WHO are likely targets; it wasn't done with cluster bombs and helicopters, but usually via ordinary dedicated politicians, and the LEO's and foot soldiers available.

[oregon73]

It's quite obvious that government in the wrong hands can be a serious threat to freedom and liberty in the United States. Just look at the Clinton administration, with Janet Reno as Attorney General. Probably the worst I can think of. But then, George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan both either signed laws or allowed policies to change which altered (diminished) the private citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Obama and Hillary would do the same and more--think, permanent assault weapons ban, plus a national ban on concealed weapons permits for private citizens. It is insidious. They truly want to strip us all down, make us helpless, and then provide security for us on our own dime, at their own convenience. That is, when the you-know-what truly hits the fan (think Hurricane Katrina), there will be no security.

Yes, absolutely, the government and the corporations (who are in bed with many foreign governments, like China, Saudi Arabia, and others who would do us harm) want us to work, sleep, eat their food, and buy (consume) their cheap plastic junk. Sorry to be so negative on a Monday but this is an issue that really gets me going.

Rob

[Dave]

It is pretty clear that civilian disarmament is a race. The race is can the govt disarm the population before the govt goes so far that people start shooting.
The bad part is the govt seems well aware it intends to do things people will not stand for and sees no limit to what it can do.
The socialist utopia can not be realized until resistance is impossible. The largest, wealthiest, smartest, and best armed latent guerrilla force in the world is the middle class American male. Our govt is well aware of this.
Lately I am hearing that the US is engaged in a "cold civil war" due to the deep divisions that are so entrenched between red people and blue people. Maybe that is accurate.

[JerryB]

All my kids and grandkids have watched Red Dawn,It should be compulsery in all American schools.

[salvo]

I have always wondered when I read threads like this, if our young fighting men would actually cluster bomb there fathers, brothers and sons over gun control?
I have not had the honor to serve my country and respect and admire those that do and have. Most military friends I have made have the same beliefs as I do. I have just always wondered if our fighting men would turn on there citizens. I guess from the past, most take there orders

[Buffboy]

I'm all for the Second Ammendment, and and I am all against gun restrictions. I'm for citizens owning real firepower. But I've got a good buddy who is 100% conservative Republican (like me...) but he has served for like 15 years in the U.S. Army. His opinion, while generally being pro-gun is that the U.S. Military is far and away superior beyond any threat that any citizen or group of citizens or coalition of citizens can put together. If it ever came down to it, and the Army decided to fight the citizens, they'd demolish the citizens. They're not going to have a target competition with you for a trophy. You shoot at them, they're going to blow up your house. My level three armor is not going to keep a tank shell from coming in through the picture window of the living room. That's his view and since I've never been in the military, and he has, I'm going with his view. Doesn't mean that if they come up my driveway that I'm going to walk out the door with a pitcher of lemonade and some sugar cookies, no, far from it, but I'm not expecting ompthe citizens to fight off the U.S. Army and get anywhere but dead. And, I'll bet that exact point comes up at the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments over the D.C. gun ban.

Here's to hoping it will never happen, but that statement is entirely incorrect on any number of fronts.