Why do Democrats want our guns?

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by PhotoFeller, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Why not ask your secular humanist messiah, Captain Zero, to release all of the documents pertaining to Operación Rápido y Furioso?

    If the operation resembled the yarn you spin, i.e. that it was meant as a method of "tracing" the guns to Meheecan drug cartels, then there couldn't possibly be a shred of damning evidence contained within those documents n'est–ce pas?

    Surely the man who vowed to "fundamentally transform America" and his colleague Commander Brainwash should be able to explain in detail how arming some of the most psychotic killers on planet Earth was a most excellent idea, devoid of any insidious subterfuge, and that thousand of cartel thugs were subsequently traced to the thousands of deadly weapons that were gifted to the murdering psychotics in question.

    Certainly the man who exhorted his useful idiots to vote for him in order to exact "revenge" on their behalf could be magnanimous enough to throw us 'bitter clingers' a friggin' bone, and let us know how tracing firearms purchased in America to dip**** cartel foot soldiers--who can be replaced for a nickle a dozen any day of the week--was able to reap tangible benefits meeting or exceeding the murder and chaos said deadly weapons facilitated in the hands of rabid animals.

    Perhaps you could beseech him to do it for the children? That usually works with liberal scum, does it not?

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Like most people the fear of the unknown is greater than the fear of the known.

    Most Dem's don't know anything about guns except clips. They always seem to bring that old tool of yesteryear up. They seem to have a real hard on for clips. Sure glad I have detachable magazines that don't use clips.

  3. You think too highly of yourself. Perhaps janice6 is like me. I could respond to your statements, in an articulate and cogent manner, refuting your drivel, but I have better things to do with my time and responding to you is just not worth it to me.
    RJ<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
    #83 RJ's Guns, Jan 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  4. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Participating here at GT usually means more than posting an opinion or information to realize personal satisfaction. Others read our exchanges and, hopefully, decide for themselves what is truth and what is trash.

    My OP was intended to elicit answers about philosophical differences between Ds and Rs on gun issues. The responses varied a little, but most opined that Progressives want to disarm us in order to control us. This tactic, some said, is part of a grand plan to move the country to socialism, or even communism. The underlying motivations for transforming the USA are that Ds hate individualism and personal wealth, they want all citizens to be totally dependent on government, they want disarmament so no one can rebel. The end game, as I interpret their vision, would be a society like North Korea. Democratic government as we know it would disappear.

    My reaction to the take-over scenario was to question the plausibility of it. I asked why Republicans don't expose the grand scheme to win elections; God knows we need something to restore Republican prominence. I probed for evidence that legitimate Conservative thinkers are speaking out about the core principles of Progressivism and the threat they pose to Democracy.

    The overwhelming response to my queries has been criticism, name calling and whatever you call Fred Hansen's babbling. Thats why I made the remark that Janice6's non-answer is, in its emptiness, a clear answer.

    You folks have convinced me that any honest inquiry about your views is unwelcome. Any queries that ask for support of your ideas beyond 'fringe' theory are met with name calling. Any attempt at sincere discourse is rebuffed. So be it.
    #84 PhotoFeller, Jan 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  5. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    I believe the real answer lies here^^. Dems against guns (private citizens and pols) just don't know anything about guns or understand the feelings of people who want them, enjoy them and insist on owning them. They are afraid of guns, and mass shooting incidents exacerbate their fear. They believe if ARs are owned by more citizens and high cap mags are available, everyone is in greater danger. They can't imagine being armed for self defense because they fear the weapons used for SD.

    The cities are strongholds for anti-gunners because the only exposure these citizens have to guns comes from TV, movies, crime statistics and overblown news coverage of gun crimes. They are inundated with media scare tactics any time crime can be linked to guns.

    Guys like Schumer, Bloomburg, even Scarboro, have no first hand knowledge about firearms. Like so many people I've known who were never exposed to guns for sport and fun or in the military, they are truly afraid of them. They don't know a magazine from a clip or an automatic from a semi-auto. They don't understand calibers or ballistics. All they believe is that guns are dangerous killing machines, they are scared s---less of them, so firearms should be eliminated.

    Politicians representing states like New York and Connecticut reflect the thinking of their anti-gun constituents. Indiana and Kentucky politicians represent the dominant attitude of their pro-gun constituents. Thats how politicians get elected. Big cities tend to be anti-gun while rural area citizens want their guns left alone. Harry Reid is a prime example of constituent influence; he is a flaming liberal, but he won't fight for gun control because he'd get skinned in the next election. Citizen attitudes and fears drive anti-gun politics, not political philosophy, in my opinion.

    Thats how this debate shakes out for me after thinking about various explanations for politicial behavior on gun issues. The fear factor and a lack of positive experiences with firearms, along with media propaganda, fuels anti-gun attitudes in our society. This explanation at least seems plausible, but I have no expert evidence to support it. This is just my opinion.
    #85 PhotoFeller, Jan 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  6. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    It isn't a secret and you are being warned by both parties, they just don't put it in terms that sound like "conspiracy." It actually requires you to think to understand what's going on. The Democrats would deny any "conspiracy to control" and they would be telling the truth as they see it. But if you break it down into parts, they'll freely admit that want more regulation of business and trade, more regulation of ever personal freedom you can name (especially guns), more of your money to be taken away and redistributed by those who know best. It goes on and on - they don't think of it as a conspiracy to disarm and control you, because most of them never bother to think or put the big picture together either. They just keep making little "inmprovements" until you have no freedom left.
  7. It is one of the tenants of the Commiecrat Religion and it is a Religion,plain and simple. SJ 40
  8. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Thanks, Bren. Your explanation has a reasonable ring to it, as least as part of the puzzle's answer, if I understand it: The Progressive solution to all social ills is implementation of more entitlement schemes, more regulation and bigger government, which are paid for by income redistribution. Over time, individualism and self sufficiency are weakened by dependency on government. Surrendering rights, including 2A, becomes a byproduct of Progressive gradualism. Interesting.
    #88 PhotoFeller, Jan 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  9. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    So you really are just extremely naive. Interesting.

    I had the endgame of "progressive gradualism" figured out before the 6th grade. Nixon--father of things like the EPA--was president, and he had just decided to double-down on LBJ's Great Society. The age of giant government was being brought to bear on the citizenry by both parties, and the future looked extremely bleak.

    Of course I guess I was fortunate in that I had a social studies/geography teacher at that time who was willing to explain to us why Communism was a great evil, and why we should be extremely grateful for the blessings of liberty that were ours by birthright. Today's NEA union thugs would have had him summarily dismissed.

    I suppose that some of us really "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" while others have access to the entire Weather Channel, and still don't get it. Very interesting indeed. Sad too...

    One of life's big ****ing mysteries I guess. :dunno:
  10. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    What really is sad, Fred, is that you probably could help enlighten many of us if you weren't so bloody sarcastic and so infatuated with your own intellect. Good luck.
    #90 PhotoFeller, Jan 21, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  11. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    There is no way to enlighten people who--despite living in an age of virtually unlimited access to information--refuse to consider said information and/or think critically about it.

    We live in an age where a man can stand in front of a camera, and tell people that he intends to run PsyOps on them in order to "brainwash" away one of their enumerated rights, and the average dumb ass still doesn't 'get it'. Still doesn't get it when it is happening right in front of him/her/it in real time. Hundreds of people dead as a result of the operation--including fellow countryman--no one held accountable, and virtually no one demanding that it be answered for... Instead, I am the problem. That would almost be funny if it wasn't so ****ing pathetic.

    The enemies of freedom exude a kind of hubris I never thought I would ever see. Not only do they telegraph their every move to steal freedom away from the human race, they do a little end-zone dance in our face about it.


    A community organizer comes along telling the hope-a-doped hordes that hopey-changey is here at last, and instead of this springing to mind:

    The hordes chant ¡Sí, se puede! in a language they don't even understand. LOL

    And if one were so bold as to point out the obvious, the automatic response is to throw the 'race card', the 'you hurt my widdle feewings card', or whatever politically correct canard they happen to prefer. Their ignorance is never their problem. Someone else should have enlightened them to what is right there in front of them. Again, pathetic.

    Enjoy your bliss.
  12. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    So they don't want to control us, they just want to prevent people from doing things they don't like by taking away the ability of everyne to do those things. But that's not "control."

    Do your remarks here, where you seem to distinguish between "control" us and "make us do what they want and not do what they don't want" make sense to you?

    If they do, you should spend more time thinking about the issue.
  13. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    You would get less sarcastic answers if everything you post here didn't make it seem like you are a lweft-wing, anti-gun troll trying to be subtle enough to bait people without getting called out.
  14. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    Sorry, my abundance of ignorance resulted in duplicate posts.
    #95 PhotoFeller, Jan 21, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  15. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    It seems the only way to avoid sarcasm and name calling is to walk lockstep with GT mainstream thinking. However, conforming doesn't allow for asking questions that rub the wrong way. The learning experience is diminished without being free to probe and poke.

    If my posts have been troll-like because they challenge unsupported statements and theories that seem unrealistic, then this isn't a place for open debate. If someone posts a 'radical' one liner and I inquire about meat for the bones, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. And, as Fred will tell you, I'm not smart enough to bait anyone.

    Since you are a long-time Kentuckian, I would have expected you to support my point that politicians vote according to constituent attitudes in order to get re-elected. In Kentucky and Indiana, where guns are highly favored, Congressmen are expected to vote that way. In New York and Connecticut, Liberal Congressmen are elected who will vote anti-gun, and they do. Schumer, Pelosi, and the other libs are not voting anti-gun according to their conscience, they are voting to preserve electability, to maintain their image, and because they don't understand/appreciate or give a damn about our desire for unfettered gun ownership. Thus, the primary motive for voting yea or nay is reelection, not advancement of a political philosophy, in my opinion; the tail is not wagging the dog.

    I agree that Progressive give away programs undermine our economic viability and our value system simply because of the consequences they produce over time. What I still can't accept is the intent of Ds to control our country's future any more than Rs hope to control the course we take. Thats how the system is supposed to work.
    #96 PhotoFeller, Jan 21, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  16. kirgi08

    kirgi08 Southern Rogue.
    Silver Member

  17. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    kirgi, your characterization of this 'discussion' as fencing is pretty close to correct. It would be more appropriate, however, to show one combatant trying to hold off multiple swordsmen.

    It seems I'm the only person here who holds the views I do, which is a lesson in itself. Nevertheless, there is always value in debating points of view regardless of the outcome.

    You may put the popcorn away, dude, 'cause this bout is over.
    #98 PhotoFeller, Jan 21, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  18. kirgi08

    kirgi08 Southern Rogue.
    Silver Member

    Speak your mind,back your opinion and be honest.I'm somewhat of a black sheep here.'08.

Share This Page