Random Thought on Gun Control Philosophy

[BumBum]

I was just contemplating some political philosophy, regarding gun control of course. But this could apply to any nanny-state politics.

To believe that gun control works requires a belief that people are inherently good, that they can be trusted to comply with the law. At the same time, to believe that there is a need for gun control requires a belief that people are inherently bad, that they cannot be trusted with guns.

So which is it? The only way I can reconcile this is that the answer is, neither. Instead it must be a simple, more sinister desire for control of the people.

[krwada]

good topic ... In fact ... this is a GREAT TOPIC.

You need to place a poll on this musing.

I believe that the Liberals believe people are inherently BAD ... therefore you need plenty of rules and regulations, and a police state so people can closely watch each other and report 'bad' or politically incorrect behavior.

This inherently BAD point of view is predominant in most Socialist and Communist organizations... There appears to be historical precedent for this.

What the heck you think that "gun-violence" restraining order is all about? Not only is this thing un-constitutional from the 2nd amendment point of view. It is appears to be un-constitutional from the "due process", (4th and 14th amendment) point of view too.

Is any of this going to stop or hinder our majority socialist politicians in California?

I think NOT!

[DCF]

Gun control folks believe guns are the enabler and guns are evil. Good people will do bad things because of the presences of guns, bad people will continue to do bad things because of the availability of guns. Innocent people like children or naive adults will hurt themselves and others because of guns.

They believe guns are purely for killing only and only police and military should have them. They also thinks the police is there to protect and serve them, and police will be there when there is trouble. If the police didn't show up or show up in time, then well, bad things happen to good people. The victims never have a fighting chance anyways and if guns are presences, it can only lead to be used against the victims.

[bohoki]

you cant argue logic when someone is arguing emotion

[CBruce]

I was just contemplating some political philosophy, regarding gun control of course. But this could apply to any nanny-state politics.

To believe that gun control works requires a belief that people are inherently good, that they can be trusted to comply with the law. At the same time, to believe that there is a need for gun control requires a belief that people are inherently bad, that they cannot be trusted with guns.

So which is it? The only way I can reconcile this is that the answer is, neither. Instead it must be a simple, more sinister desire for control of the people.

You know how children misbehave and need parents to set rules for behavior to keep children safe? It's that mentality. Everyone is a child, and government is our parents.

Bad children get grounded. Good children get a gold star and get to stay up late eating ice cream.

[Vin63]

Personally, I don't think that gun control is motivated or born from a perspective of either people are inherently good or bad. I feel that it stems from trying to apply control over a populous to limit freedom. Applying control and limiting freedom provides distinct financial advantages to the person/persons applying the control.

[Squidward]

"Gun control" is a carefully crafted misdirection placing the focus on an inanimate object.

The focus should be on "crime control" where the "bad people" are held strictly accountable and appropriately punished for their actions.

[ChrisC]

I believe that the Liberals believe people are inherently BAD ... therefore you need plenty of rules and regulations, and a police state so people can closely watch each other and report 'bad' or politically incorrect behavior.

Then what is your reason for why republicans have signed so many anti gun bills into laws. Do republicans inherently feel we are bad as well? Or is it the old, if a republican signed an anti gun bill into law he is just a RINO? Or my favorite, it doesn't matter if a republican signed the bill into law, the bill was written by liberals so it doesn't count against the republican.

[Marktallica]

The agenda of our so-called representatives isn't limiting something they see as dangerous, it's power- pure and simple. They convince their voting base that they're doing it for the children, or for public safety, but the only real interest of almost ALL politicians (there are still a few good ones -- a very few) is taking for themselves as much as they can for as long as they can. For example, why target ARs so heavily when they are responsible for such a tiny percentage of gun deaths every year? Because those are the guns that have the most potential to threaten governmental power. Why ban handguns in the nation's two most violent big cities? Because without a means of defense you have to rely on the government even more, and then you "owe" them because they "protect" you.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[krwada]

Personally, I don't think that gun control is motivated or born from a perspective of either people are inherently good or bad. I feel that it stems from trying to apply control over a populous to limit freedom. Applying control and limiting freedom provides distinct financial advantages to the person/persons applying the control.

I do not think the Liberals are that smart.

They do LOVES the control however!

[krwada]

Then what is your reason for why republicans have signed so many anti gun bills into laws. Do republicans inherently feel we are bad as well? Or is it the old, if a republican signed an anti gun bill into law he is just a RINO? Or my favorite, it doesn't matter if a republican signed the bill into law, the bill was written by liberals so it doesn't count against the republican.

I was not talking about Republicans. You are.

[krwada]

It has always been about control

The agenda of our so-called representatives isn't limiting something they see as dangerous, it's power- pure and simple. They convince their voting base that they're doing it for the children, or for public safety, but the only real interest of almost ALL politicians (there are still a few good ones -- a very few) is taking for themselves as much as they can for as long as they can. For example, why target ARs so heavily when they are responsible for such a tiny percentage of gun deaths every year? Because those are the guns that have the most potential to threaten governmental power. Why ban handguns in the nation's two most violent big cities? Because without a means of defense you have to rely on the government even more, and then you "owe" them because they "protect" you.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yes ... indeed. I believe it has always been about control. There appears to be an historical precedent no?

[Sky_DiveR]

The agenda of our so-called representatives isn't limiting something they see as dangerous, it's power- pure and simple. They convince their voting base that they're doing it for the children, or for public safety, but the only real interest of almost ALL politicians (there are still a few good ones -- a very few) is taking for themselves as much as they can for as long as they can. For example, why target ARs so heavily when they are responsible for such a tiny percentage of gun deaths every year? Because those are the guns that have the most potential to threaten governmental power. Why ban handguns in the nation's two most violent big cities? Because without a means of defense you have to rely on the government even more, and then you "owe" them because they "protect" you.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

+1000000

I agree wholeheartedly.

[MisplacedTexan]

In my own experience in people who are on the "left" of the spectrum and would be more likely to support gun control (like my mother and sister) - they tend to make decisions with their heart, not their brain.

To me that's it in a nutshell - it's not an educated position based on facts, it's an emotional stance - it makes them *feel* better - to do "something".

IMHO of course.

[Webologist]

Then what is your reason for why republicans have signed so many anti gun bills into laws. Do republicans inherently feel we are bad as well? Or is it the old, if a republican signed an anti gun bill into law he is just a RINO? Or my favorite, it doesn't matter if a republican signed the bill into law, the bill was written by liberals so it doesn't count against the republican.

Check again for the little D or R associated with the sponsors of gun control bills. Let's play a game: For every anti 2A bill you can post sponsored by a Republican, I'll post 5 sponsored by Democrats. To make it relevant let's confine it to the past 10 years.

You're up lefty...