Random Thought on Gun Control Philosophy

[radioburning]

False. "Philosophy" implies using logic. Anti-gunners run on emotions.

[Bansh88]

Same people who think giving someone a paycheck for doing nothing will be motivated to get a check for doing something.

[CK_32]

To put logic and polotics in the same mindset of thinking, is broke from the start lol

[Mitch]

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.

Actually, in general terms liberals believe people are inherently good; it's conservatives who are most cynical about the motives and natures of people.

Gun control is simply a manifestation of the belief - cherished by both ends of the spectrum - that activities that are disagreeable should be legislated against. There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about gun control per se, but once it was suggested, some 45 or 50 years ago, as a remedy for skyrocketing crime, urban liberals who were already uneasy about guns jumped on the bandwagon.

If there was truly a philosophical dichotomy in which conservatives believed people were good and liberals believed the opposite, there wouldn't be so much support from the right for drug prohibitions, lengthy prison sentences, a punitive or retributional corrections system, opposition to gay marriage, suspicion of foreigners, etc, etc. Right wind support, for example, for the death penalty makes no sense at all, and seems to imply conservatives believe the government is wrong in all things except when it convicts a man of homicide; then it must be right, every single time.

So no one in this sorry picture is really operating from a logical base.

[ChrisC]

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...

I do not care who wrote or who sponsored the bills. I care about who signed them into law. Big difference.

I have always stated that most anti gun bills were written by democrats. I have never once denied that FACT! But funny how most on here refuse to accept the FACT that no bill becomes law unless a governor signs it or ignores it.

And for another fact, I have never been a democrat. I was a republican all my life until I saw the truth that both sides were screwing us and left the republican party and went independent. And the extreme majority of my votes have been for republican. So once again you are another person that likes to assume. But hey, that is ok, I just shows a person's intelligence level when they assume or generalize.

[BumBum]

So no one in this sorry picture is really operating from a logical base.

Very true. That is politics, unfortunately. My thought was just one example. "Political philosophy" to anyone who tows the party line (Republican or Democrat) is generally whatever pleases their special interest donors.

[krwada]

Actually, in general terms liberals believe people are inherently good; it's conservatives who are most cynical about the motives and natures of people.

Gun control is simply a manifestation of the belief - cherished by both ends of the spectrum - that activities that are disagreeable should be legislated against. There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about gun control per se, but once it was suggested, some 45 or 50 years ago, as a remedy for skyrocketing crime, urban liberals who were already uneasy about guns jumped on the bandwagon.

If there was truly a philosophical dichotomy in which conservatives believed people were good and liberals believed the opposite, there wouldn't be so much support from the right for drug prohibitions, lengthy prison sentences, a punitive or retributional corrections system, opposition to gay marriage, suspicion of foreigners, etc, etc. Right wind support, for example, for the death penalty makes no sense at all, and seems to imply conservatives believe the government is wrong in all things except when it convicts a man of homicide; then it must be right, every single time.

So no one in this sorry picture is really operating from a logical base.

That last statement does just about sum it all up doesn't it?

Yes ... I must admit ... I am overgeneralizing here.

I just get pissed ... I need to take a deep breath and get over it.

And of course ... continue the long march to keep fighting for our rights.

[Webologist]

I do not care who wrote or who sponsored the bills. I care about who signed them into law. Big difference.

I have always stated that most anti gun bills were written by democrats. I have never once denied that FACT! But funny how most on here refuse to accept the FACT that no bill becomes law unless a governor signs it or ignores it.

And for another fact, I have never been a democrat. I was a republican all my life until I saw the truth that both sides were screwing us and left the republican party and went independent. And the extreme majority of my votes have been for republican. So once again you are another person that likes to assume. But hey, that is ok, I just shows a person's intelligence level when they assume or generalize.

Yet your post pointed to just Republicans, despite the Democrats being the largest threat to your second amendment rights by far. I agree on the intelligence level.

Perhaps if you spent 1/4 the time deriding democrats, who should not get a pass in their full frontal assault on the 2nd, you'll have a lot fewer people calling you out...

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.

[viet4lifeOC]

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.

Um...much too deep and too sinister.

For me, and I would guess the majority, we are just ignorant.

I've always believed in the second Amendment.
I've always understood the importance of an armed populace to fight evil people, tyrannical governments, maraudering criminals, etc. Simply put...the gun is the great equalizer, It is the tool by which all other rights exist.

I never knew anyone who owned a gun. I was shocked to find out that some handguns were made of plastic.

With that mindset...sure these gun laws sounded reasonable. 10 round magazines, 10 day waiting period, only one gun per month, etc.

What got me interested in guns? Honestly, I was fascinated with "holographic sights" in Call of Duty. The science of it intrigued me. That's what got me to walk into a gun store to check them.

At the time, I was rolling in money. Working hard and saving for a house. I thought.. I'll go by an AR.

Wowser. These gun laws are INSANE. Bullet button? Test? 10 round magazines on an AR?
It was quite upsetting so much so that I bought a Daniel Defense M4A1. 7-8 years later, I still haven't fired it .

Having a ten round limit really made me look into handguns. I was ok with ten round limits because i assume all handguns were made that way. What? Standard capacity is 15, 17, 19? Knowing criminals don't obey laws, I want the same capacity that they have. So I bought 1-3 handgun a month for 13 months.

As I said... 2A is for self protection. It's not limited to just sport shooting, hunting, or punching holes in paper targets. Are forefathers weren't narrow minded numb nuts. What? Can't CCW? Why?

I read about how hard it is to get a CCW, but I wanted to make a statement and applied anyways. For about $200...it was worth giving the government the middle finger. To my surprise I got approved.

With the people I interact with....they do not frown upon guns. Most are from communist countries, tyrannical dictatorships, corrupt governments, etc.

Like me....they are ignorant of gun laws because it doesn't affect them.

I was for "reasonable gun control" until I understood their reasons.

No...for me.. gun control isn't about controlling people. It was just sheer ignorance. Had I just read 10 minutes of these gun laws...I know I'd say, "what? This makes no sense. It will do nothing to lower crime or death."

That's why I think it's so important what the video gaming industry is doing. It kindles interest in guns. Air soft, toys, movies,,,,increasing the exposure and making gun culture cool, rebellious, and fun.

[sl0re10]

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.

I tend to see it as all negative. Scapegoating out groups (gun owners), prejudice (cultural and in how arguments are framed), bias, et cetera... nothing good / all draws on dark stuff in people's psyches.

Example... if a newspaper hyped every crime committed by illegal aliens... even if their crime levels were below the average committed by citizens. "More Illegal Alien Violence; two killed"... you know; one being the suspect / using the same anti gun math games. and this went on day in and day out.. "Illegal Alien failures to pay child support causing large welfare expenses for states"... Same games they play on gun ownership... it would be obvious that it is all bias, bs, hate, scapegoating, blaw blaw blaw... lefties are not nice people... private gun ownership represent a variable in their ability to control you... ergo your guns gotta go. Its all about pure power; not blank slates and whether people are inherent good or not. Check out facebook when the libs don't get something they want... like you paying for their cheap morning after abortion pills. Sky is falling... and your not just pond scum; your sacrificing young girls to cathulu evil... but your armed so they can't really do much to you... for now.

am I nuts for thinking it helps protect us from possible threats? My dad was a refugee from a socialist country..... had uncles go to gulags... just saying...

[dvs762]

gun control is fear...its fear because most, not all...but most gun owners are more self reliant..more honest..more patriotic...less likely to be on welfare or government cheese..harder working..less reliant on others to pay our way..in other words..not their voter base..not sheep...we think..we understand this world is not all unicorns and pixies and they know we prepare for what could happen..which means we are a threat to their power..their plans..their need for the populace to be unarmed followers....thats gun control

[ScottyXbones]

I think that's a misunderstanding.

There is no good vs. evil with the anti's, that's more of a fundie line of thought, they care about what a criminal's story is that led them to their crime.


The antis see it like this, guns somehow "fall" into criminal hands from guns that are sold in stores to law-abiding citizens. They can't wrap their heads around how criminals get guns, they think any nutcase can walk into a gun store, buy as many guns as they want, and get free ammo with it. Then a clock starts counting down until they "snap" and go on a killing spree, just like in the movies, or on whatever Bloomberg-sponsored crap they watch.

The antis think if there are 100 guns in a population, 10 of them will fall into criminal hands and be used in crime. They think if they ban all 100 guns, then 0 guns will be used in crime.

The retards don't understand that criminals have their own channels for getting guns. Legislating a gun ban only takes it away from families protecting their homes, or single women protecting themselves, or, ya know, law-abiding Americans with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[BumBum]

I'm not saying that anti-gun politicians are following a particular line of political philosophy, e.g. good vs. evil. To the contrary, my point actually is to highlight the inconsistency of their position when you peel back the layers. It's this examination of underlying political philosophy where hypocrisy is revealed, whether the motivation is pandering to ignorance, special interests, a desire for control, etc.

[ChrisC]

Perhaps if you spent 1/4 the time deriding democrats, who should not get a pass in their full frontal assault on the 2nd, you'll have a lot fewer people calling you out...

Why should I call out the dems when you all are doing it. It seems that I and maybe a few others point to the FACT that republicans are taking away our rights as well. Most on here seem to ignore that FACT. But hey, that is why I do not have any political affiliation party, all parties seem to ignore what their own people are doing while pointing fingers at everyone else.

People can assume about me all they want. I have really never cared about what people on a forum think of me. I know who I am, who I vote for and what I have done to help secure everyone's rights to firearms. When gun owners can't even get along with fellow gun owners, there is no reason for myself to care what they think about me.

[boy&hisdogs]

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.

It's not about good and bad, it's about superior and inferior. Nanny staters believe that they're a cut above the average person and "know what's best for us/them/the community" and are doing it "for your own good". It's not that they think you are an inherently bad person, they just think you're too dumb/weak minded to be trusted with guns (or anything else).