"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney
Politics is nuts. That's why I play fantasy games like this one. If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Great idea. Worked really well with weed!
Long live Mehul!
Worst argument ever. Outlawing guns works in every other country.Originally Posted by Crazyguy
Support email: utopiasupport@utopia-game.com <- please use this and don't just PM me| Account Deleted/Inactive | Utopia Facebook Page |PM DavidC for test server access
That's not an argument, that's a statement of a fact.
Long live Mehul!
Worked pretty well for Australia...
But that's really beside the point. I haven't heard any politician call for an outright ban on firearms. They want more regulation. Despite what's been said for the past 12 years, unless you're someone who is a significant risk to the public, no one is trying to take your guns away
the key is well regulated and strict gunlaws and changing the mentality of the american people. Big portion of the population is stuck with the "Owning a gun is my right i live in USA!!" While you look at countries like Sweden or Norway that rarely has any mass shootings but is in the top 10 gun capita per world.
If anyone actually tried to ban all guns I would definitely oppose them, but there isn't. Nobody is trying to take any law abiding citizen's gun away. Most spend weeks if not months contemplating what the best gun to buy is for the job at hand, so registration period is a really laughable reason to oppose stricter gun control.
Personally I don't see a reason for someone living in a city to own a gun other than for sport. But if you live in the country and have to deal with coyotes, wolves, bears and such it's a necessity. I do support shooting as a sport though because if done right it teaches so many things such as concentration, control and hand-eye coordination. A hothead with no control is a ticket to disaster.
But again, NOBODY wants to or could take guns away. The question is just will you get the gun you are buying the day of purchase or a little later. If you need that gun today specifically my intuition tells me you shouldn't have a gun, not today anyway.
Obama and Clinton most definitely want to take guns away.
Donald Trump shot Hillary Clinton.
See, it's easy to make up **** and post it on the Internet with no relevant sources to back it up.
Here's a source showing how much Obama really doesn't give a **** about your guns (old, but still relevant):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ming-our-guns/
The only thing even remotely close to showing that Hillary wants to "take your guns away" is her wanting to ban semiautomatic rifles, which you don't need for any reasonable legal reason outside of a gun collection.
Supporting mass confiscation is taking peoples' guns away. Anything less is really a waste of time and political capital. Obama and Clinton both support measures like that.
What you won't get is any reduction in violent crime, probably an increase actually. You won't get any less police brutality because the reasons for police brutality are fixed and the inevitable result of liberal capitalism. The whole enterprise is designed to come to the consensus that some Other group needs to be singled out for humiliations, and with disarmament comes an inevitable increase in senseless brutality from law enforcement. This is my life today. I have far more to fear from the police and agents of the state than any random yahoo with a gun, far more.
Obama's failure to basically destroy the 2nd amendment is largely due to congressional obstructionism. This is the ONE issue that Republicans have left to court voters in the middle, there is no way they are going to let go of it. This one issue is why we don't have a 9th SC justice.
No they don't.
(I'm only going to reply to your nonsense with these 3 words until you provide a credible source to back up your claims)
This matter came up in the Hillary vs. Bernie debates. Hillary's statement effectively made it impossible for gun manufacturers to sell their product without being sued, which would be a backdoor method to basically outlaw guns. The MSM pushed the narrative that Hillary somehow "won" the debate, and that her disgusting tactic to smear Bernie on the matter was a good move (it sure as hell wasn't). Both are in favor of gun control and banning semiautomatic weapons. I could see tighter restrictions on what is sold, but that isn't what is really being discussed and it's a waste of time to pretend otherwise. The only move that would be of any interest to gun control people is full confiscation, otherwise federal and state law already allows for as much control as is needed. That clearly is not enough, and a great deal of effort is made from Bloomberg and friends to manufacture consent for laws that go beyond mere restrictions and waiting periods.
Aside from that, there isn't a totalitarian measure Obama sees that he doesn't like, so this would be the only thing that follows. Of course he's going to deny what he's doing in the face of intense opposition, after he got burned for showing his smugness in '08.
No they don't.
no one wants to or could for that matter confiscate guns. whatever you have been reading, put it down and check the facts.
not one politician, not even one like clinton, or maybe especially not one like clinton would shoot their own foot by attempting to shut down a multimillion dollar industry. and anyone that believes that underestimates the greed involved.
an immediate confiscation is merely expensive. what you'd see - and what you have seen in places like NY state - are laws and policies that give police authority and ability to search and seize for any number of imagined offenses, and if a gun happens to appear, they are liable for all manner of penalties (whether the gun was legally possessed or not). this would be coupled with effectively a ban on the sale of any new legitimate arms (in force in NY). eventually enough of the populace is disarmed that violent force can be escalated further without fear of reprisal against the police.
i believe the greed for power and abusing random people outweighs greed for money the arms industry isn't sending to HRC of all people. conservative and some democrat greed maybe, but the super establishment have way more money coming from people who want this, the Bloombergs and their ilk, who have a vested interest in a controllable population.
as bishop said, outlawing guns works in every other country. there is no reason to assume it can't happen here, implemented in a similar manner. the laws as they are currently written allow for way more control than most people think, if states are pressured into accepting it. seeking ways to use lawsuits to effectively ban guns, or overriding state laws, is the kind of move Obama and HRC want, since state-level bans don't stop interstate arms travel. that is the definition of "taking away your guns" for all intents and purposes - it is the only meaningful gun control that Obama could aim for, anything less would be superficial - and Obama sure as hell wouldn't spend the political capital on such a project, considering that this one issue brings Republican votes by the droves (again, even though Republican elites don't really care and happily vote for new restrictions so long as they're on some Other group. the NRA doesn't help by being complicit in race-baiting cowardice and supporting every invasion of privacy they can think of to tighten the noose of a police state).
as you can probably tell though, enacting gun control to a sufficient degree isn't necessarily the only goal - all that is needed is to move the political debate into narrow terms that allow for an Othered group to be scapegoated, so that enough ordinary people participate and encourage the scapegoating, so that class warfare is directed between the lower orders. it is of vital importance that guns aren't pointed towards police or agents of the state, and especially that those arms are not backed by civil society questioning the actions of elites. arms reduction however is useful to maintain the absolute advantage of police power over civil society.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote