Assuming the liberal stance on gun control is wrong, what do they stand to gain from banning guns?
I will preface this by saying I don't necessarily think the liberal stance on gun control is wrong. I enjoy guns, encourage they be used responsibly, and feel that civilian access to them is an important right for the maintenance of a free state. But, recently, I have been struggling with my stance as a gun owner on account of, what seems to be, a growing body of evidence against it. Not to mention the near constant stream of reportage on how guns are a public health concern.
This isn't a semantics argument. It's a hypothetical. If the info they report IS false, what is their gain for doing so?
Are they simply scared and misinformed? Is it a conspiracy to gain control of the population? Is it a political maneuver for Left wing policy makers to seem strong and protective?
Is there an interpretation that is more balanced then the black and white boilerplate both sides throw out?
gun control like abortion is used to control members of the party. the issue will never be solved
Adam Watson
So it's simply for political points?
Liam Kelly
Searching for reason in the left is like searching for fire at the bottom of the ocean. If leftists could reason they would not be leftists.
Caleb Johnson
Yes when a political party follows through on a promise they lose a huge amount of voters. Marijuana legalization has cost the democrats huge amounts of votes
Jackson Lopez
when the democrat party was putting its modern show together? They just started pandering to "groups" and taking their votes... nobody took "mommies against violence" seriously? the DEMS grabbed that special interest up? and fanned the flames of it to make it into a part of their platform. Honestly? if enough people got together and were trying to ban the color red? If there are enough VOTES IN THE GROUP, the democrts will try to bring them into their side.
Matthew Murphy
lets say the ban AR-15s that means they lose all the anti gun people who just wanted them banned and not all guns
Nicholas Cox
This is woman thing. They are hysterical nonsensical fucking cunts who think if they ban guns it'll save their kids from being killed at schools. The males in the Democrat party? They are simply nutless bitches who do what the women tell them to do. Of course, the gov loves this shit because once they have our guns they'll know we can't shoot them in the fucking face anymore so they love it but understand that this is a bunch of crazy cunts who don't think rationally and they are behind this. Even the root word of "hysterical" comes from hyster as in hysterectomy meaning to remove what makes a woman a woman but in this case you can't remove crazy from women EVER. They are born fucking nut jobs.
>Assuming the liberal stance on gun control is wrong, what do they stand to gain from banning guns? Power. Power to do whatever they may wish to do to you, at gunpoint. They want to bring about a situation, whereby the only remaining guns are the ones pointed squarely at your head, as they order you: "dig!" Gun control is just that; to control you with a gun.
Logan Diaz
the same thing Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, china, north Korea all got from doing so..... control
Nathan Jones
>Assuming the liberal stance on gun control is wrong, what do they stand to gain from banning guns?
Same thing every society in history has sought by disarming its people: Control.
And no, our Democrats aren't different. If the Second Amendment falls, the First WILL fall shortly thereafter.
Luke Ward
>what do they stand to gain
Here's a fun mental exercise.
Imagine trying to control an unarmed population.
Now imagine trying to control the same population, but armed.
So there's one motivation.
Others include a hatred of traditional masculinity, which engages in things like hunting, and a fear of things they do not understand -- and if you follow what they say about guns during their political diatribes, you will quickly see that they have very little understanding of firearms.
The point of gun control is to disarm White people. As soon as the local White population is disarmed, there is no way for those Whites to fight back against (((government))) tyranny or having their White country being flooded with millions of shitskins.
Britain was the birthplace of English Common Law, which made it mandatory for every male citizen to armed and to be apart of the militia in order to defend their community and nation. Fast forward to the modern day and Britain has outlawed ownership of firearms and knives so that the average White British subject can never own one let alone defend themselves without legal repercussions.
>Assuming the liberal stance on gun control is wrong, what do they stand to gain from banning guns? Power over the weaponless. Which will not include the liberals themselves, because they consider themselves above the law.
It's purely an emotion over reason. Gun control laws have zero correlation with crime rates.
Ethan Wilson
Guns wouldn't be banned outright. They would only be reserved for 'authorities'.
Nicholas Nguyen
The complete and utter control of the people and absolute authortarian state where their enemies are oppressed and silenced by the state for wrong think.
It's really not hard to see where either side is going, OP.
Benjamin Morris
White conservatives own guns legally and the white-genocide left wants us unarmed so that all those Muslim mercenaries—I mean refugees—will have a safer and easier time wiping out middle America.
Samuel Ward
>what seems to be, a growing body of evidence against it. Not to mention the near constant stream of reportage on how guns are a public health concern.
Stop listening to retards?
Cheeseburgers and opioid overdoses kill magnitudes more people than firearms even including suicides (which are 2/3 of all firearms deaths in the US.)
David Collins
damn that's a sweet gun
Isaac Harris
The people most eager to disarm you are the people who plan to attack you. The liberals want us robbed and enslaved, and killed if we resist.
Samuel Price
Faggot OP, listen to the bongistanian on what happens when the rights to have guns is taken away, he has first hand experience
Matthew Price
they're already wiping out middle america. in fact, all the stuff you're saying would happen without guns has been happening for like 30 years -- with guns -- so what's the point?
Jews can openly kidnap children walking home from school or even from the park since no one can shoot them in the act. The anti gun agenda is to protect us. It’s to protect them.
Virtue signaling for the plebs, ruling with an iron fist for the elite
Lurk more newfag.
Easton Ross
To disempower people who disagree with the government who, after the banning of firearms, will have a monopoly on effective violence.
Austin Martin
It makes it much easier to control the populace. The reason why attempts and rhetoric have been ramping up so intensely in the past few years is because they need to get it done before the demographics really hit home and white Americans realize what's been done to them.
Leo Kelly
They are simply scared and misinformed. Also cowardly, as it differs from being scared.
Michael Wright
take away the common man's ability to defend himself and you can do whatever you want to him. break down his door in the middle of the night and drag him off to jail for posting something anti-semetic without fear of resistance.
Dominic Campbell
owning stocks in guns and other defence equipment companies.
Pretty much this. With the current demographics the left will hold power for years upon years once 2024 or so hits. Of course once the white/Christian right realizes that demographics matter and that they will in fact lose their culture to migrants who will then want to instigate their own culture once they're the majority will result in a rebellion. If white Americans have guns, they'll be problem to contend with. Hence all the mass shootings, all the gun grabbing rhetoric, etc. etc.
Brayden Jackson
The goal of gun control is to criminalize the left's political enemies. They know that gun owners are overwhelmingly white, rural and conservative. By criminalizing guns you have an avenue to put them in jail and remove them from the voting population. Sure, some pro-2A liberals might get caught up in the mix, but it will all work out in the left's favor.
They did the same shit in the 60's with drugs.
Bentley White
What body of evidence?
Alexander Bennett
Kulaks won't be able to fight back.
Jack Hill
>i like guns, but you know... they should be banned
fuckin' jew
why would only a select (((few))) get guns and the majority doesn't? it's all (((them))) having power over you. guns play a big role in balancing power between one another. (((they))) don't what a balance of power. (((they))) want the power so (((they))) can control you
once (((they))) strip your right to bear arms, then (((they))) strip your right to freedom of speech, then your right to property, liberty, and ultimately life. and when they do, guess what? you've got nothing to revolt against (((them))) with--you're stuck being (((their))) slave for the rest of your life
They honestly think that banning guns will eliminate firearm related deaths. They think that once guns are banned, there will never be another homicide by firearm.
The left are useful idiots and don't understand the globalist elites use them as pons. They think a Gender Studies degree makes them an elite. No Guns we are the next England.
Tired of nobody knowing what the word liberal means. The right to own arms is liberal, it did not exist without caveat for all citizens equally before the advent of western liberalism. Before liberalism there were only various forms of monarchies who for fucking sure did not allow unfettered access to weapons for any and all citizens within their respective mainlands. Also it's idiotic to call progressive stances gun control as if everybody on all sides of the issue doesn't favour some form of gun control. Is anybody involved in the discussion arguing for private mirv nukes? No? Then the conversation isn't gun control vs no gun control, it's a conversation about what type of gun control is ethical and prudent. Some may say less, some may say more, some may say something incomparable to any other stance. Stop letting people frame things for you with simplistic rhetoric and marketing, and just look at things as they actually exist, and then you can figure out your own positions truthfully without serving anybody's agenda.
Nicholas Parker
They are a large group with many motivations and reasoning behind what they are asking for which, again, is no single thing.
The average person you will meet who subscribe to this position see highly sensationalized reporting of gun death events and have no use for firearms themselves, so it is an easy thing for a politician to play off some small fear they have and offer to take weapons away from others in order to secure votes from these people.
These same people will of course often times tell you that they enjoy drinking and that prohibition was ineffective and infringes on their right to enjoy themselves, despite all the deaths that result from drunk drive and liver damage and other related problems. But they like to drink so they do not appreciate others wanting to take that away from them. Sometimes you can get them to think about things if you point out that this is at odds with their position on banning other things. But most people are not concerned with principles and not being a hypocrite, they just want things to be simple and to be happy.
And of course there are power mongers who play this off people to gain influence and money. But that is not new.
