An Interesting Perception...At Least I Think So

[Ruffnek]

So they want to ban guns?Why?

"Guns kill people"
"They serve no essential purpose"
"In this day and age,the need for guns is less prevalent"
"You dont need a gun"
"The wrong people could get ahold of them"

Couldn't all of these statements be said for other items such as cigarettes,alcohol,or large soft drinks?I believe so.So why not try to ban these items,which should be easier as I am sure that there is no National Soft Drink Association,National Alcohol Association,or Nation Tobacco Association to pose any resistance quite like the National Rifle Association does.Now before the torches and pitchforks are dusted off,allow me to put this into a political and economical perspective if you would.

Political:This is an obvious one for a government that wants to 'improve' its country because it is meant to enhance the health and well being of the general population.So why not?Because these items are too popular and haven't been publically used in mass killings,so therefore have no outcry for banishment.Lets face facts:443,000 Americans(rough average) are killed yearly by cigarettes while only 12,000(rough average) are killed by guns per year.Seems as if they are going after the wrong "instrument of death" here doesn't it?

Economical:The recent sequester and other economic failures have shown the weaknesses in the United States' economy.Doesn't revenue from sales tax and FFL fees go towards helping to stimulate the economy?A public school student who slept through most of their high school economics class(such as myself) can tell you that the sales tax on a $1500 AR or even a $350 Kel Tec(bring on the bashers) is a considerable amount more than that placed on a $4.25 pack of cigarettes,a $.79 Polar Pop,or a $15 bottle of whiskey.Seems as if "stimulating the economy" isn't really on the mind of the president whose main focus was the economy when he took office.

Fellow INGOers,please help this public school boy understand the reason why the government is after my guns rather than my cigarettes and large Coke.

Feel free to move this thread if it is in the wrong area.

 

[JTScribe]

A high-capacity assault SUV tragically killed six teenagers in Ohio last week.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

They ARE after your cigs and 16 oz sodas. You con't smoke in public anymore hardly anywhere( not that I do but one should be able to, outside, if they want).

New York just banned the sale of "sugary" drinks over 16 oz.

The gov't has been trying to make the automotive industry downsize vehicles for years. They've has been paying folks to buy crappy electric cars. There you go.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

 

[Mackey]

A high-capacity assault SUV tragically killed six teenagers in Ohio last week.

Exactly.
The US has around 30 to 40,000 people killed on the highways every year.

You can expect 80-90 people to die each day on the roads in the US.

 

[TopDog]

This type of comparison has been brought up many times. It does not matter.

To understand the reason look at the same explanation about rape. Rape is not about sex, its about control. Gun legislation is not about fixing anything, its not about making anyone safer. It is about CONTROL and nothing else.

So no matter how many verifiable facts you provide, no matter how coherent the pro gun argument is, it has zero impact on anti gun nut jobs. The left/Liberals/Democrats have no interest in a coversation as they patriot constantly. They want total and absolute control. One of those controls is disarmament. And if the left/democrats/liberals have to take baby steps at infringement of the Second Amendment that is fine with them. They are not discouraged by small set backs, they control the media, they therefore control the sheep. That is how they elect a president that would be king and they will never sway from complete disarmament of the American people in an effort to achieve control in a what will be a Socialist country.

 

[Ruffnek]

Very good points everyone.I do realize that control is the real issue here.I just sometimes like to look outside the box and it did seem like a valid argument from the perspective I was looking at.

 

[tirebay1997]

I agree with topdog. They must control the herd. And it's much easier when they're disarmed.

 

[dhnorris]

They want your guns because "all power comes from the barrel of a gun" and they want ALL the power. If the "civilian security force" Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" By Executive Order are to actually have power they must be the only ones armed. They will come from the welfare masses of the inner cities and the job will be to put the boot onto the neck of America. God bless us all.

 

[zippy23]

What we need to learn is that arguing the truth with these liberals is pointless and will get you no where. Its about one thing, control, and its hard to control a group of people who shoot at you. if they dont have guns but you do, its very easy. And the whole cigarettes issue, yes they are doing everything they can to get rid of them as well, its one way of denying care for obamacare, they will be able to deny you care if you are old and have cancer, they will say you smoked so we wont pay for it, just as they are charging extra premiums to smokers for obamacare, its for control.

The libs know everything we are argue, the republicans act as if the liberals dont understand logic and dont understand the truth, they know it just as we do, but their goal is the OPPOSITE of our goal, thats the real key. we want freedom, they want gov't control, these two things are impossible together obviously, so they need to take away your freedoms in order for their agenda to happen. They win the masses with lies created specifically to go against the truth. they know exactly what they are doing, we need to start looking at this from the right point of view. the politicians get it, the masses are just idiot liberal voters, most of whom has no idea what they are even voting for.

 

[Field King]

Very good points everyone.I do realize that control is the real issue here.I just sometimes like to look outside the box and it did seem like a valid argument from the perspective I was looking at.

my answer: votes! The majority of gunowners vote Republican!

 

[Sfrandolph]

Control is the biggest problem of the human race. All other problems come from control or the desire to control. This is true in the family, at work, in the govt. Control is the exact opposite of freedom which is why people resist control so forcefully. Now before some people fly of the handle SOME control is warranted. Such as exerting a certain level of control over our children in order to teach them and to keep them safe to a degree. But that control is reduced as the child ages and becomes more responsible. The govt however never relinquishes any control once that control has been gained.

 

[figley]

So they want to ban guns?Why?


Couldn't all of these statements be said for other items such as cigarettes,alcohol,or large soft drinks?I believe so.So why not try to ban these items,which should be easier as I am sure that there is no National Soft Drink Association,National Alcohol Association,or Nation Tobacco Association to pose any resistance quite like the National Rifle Association does.Now before the torches and pitchforks are dusted off,allow me to put this into a political and economical perspective if you would.

Thanks, Ruffnek Bloomberg!

It's about liberty, period. Don't fall into the trap of a, "needs test", or any other attempt at justifying something, as you backpedal.

Same on magazine limits. A capacity limit, to me, just says that a certain number of casualties is acceptable, and it's .gov's prerogative to determine what that number should be.

What's overlooked is that is a culture problem, it's a violence problem. How about we try to prevent people from being motivated to go on a shooting spree, instead of trying to legislate what size of shooting spree they can go on.