The Controller mentality
Here is something I have seen constantly among pro-gun control advocates here that continues to elude me.
Outside of this particular board they post on other topics. Many will post on a variety topics, others are a bit more narrow concerning where they offer comment. However, there is one thing that is nearly universal among them to some degree:
They all find a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the government in at least one facet. Some will tell you the police are killing unarmed civilians either out of the arrogance of power and/or racist animosity. Some will tell you we are being sold-out by the politicians to multi-national corporations that heed no national laws and are laws unto themselves. Many will claim the government has all but discarded our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in the name of a surveillance police state. Others will claim the government wages illegal wars of aggression. Still others will even tell you the US government engineered 9/11. We incessantly hear of stolen elections and corrupt appointments.
Every person posting here on behalf of expanded gun control subscribes to at least one of these propositions. Some of these complaints I find absurd but there are many to which I am sympathetic to varying degrees.
But I'm not really interested in arguing the veracity of these claims. In fact, for the purposes of this OP I will assume the claims are all as true insofar as the proponents state them to be.
So why then the mania to disarm the people?
If you truly believe the government is a racist, corporatist, lawless, war-mongering, murdering, self-selecting, rights-abusing police state why in Heaven's name are the people to be made defenseless? Even if you believe civilians could never match modern militaries (the Viet Cong, ISIS, etc. may beg to differ) the entire premise of gun control relies upon the assertion that the government is and forever will be a beneficent caretaker.
How does anyone reconcile these beliefs in their own minds?
= new reply since forum marked as read
...reject the basic premise of criminal law; that the criminal justice system is designed to investigate, try and convict the criminals and to then impose penalties, extra supervision and, sometimes, segregation on those convicted.
These folks believe in, what I consider, the control myth. I call it a myth because scientifically control is defined as a closed loop system where a monitor measures and analyzes a quantified attribute of a system and a mechanism linked to the monitor operates to restore the measured attribute to the desired level. (Like a thermostat or the inlet valve in a toilet tank.)
Gun control only controls the activities of those who personally choose to subscribe to it. As is blatantly evident from the news, many people often choose otherwise. Numerous posts here and readily available information from many sources clearly illustrate that THERE IS NO POSITIVE CONTROL FOR PEOPLE. Further, positive control of people is the antithesis of freedom.
Maybe I'm just stupid but I kind of thought we (and by we I mean Americans in general and Democrats specifically) believe in freedom.
Murder, robbery, rape, arson... these are all violent crimes. We have laws that provide for convicting perpetrators and applying a sentence. A secondary effect of those laws may be that, out of fear of the consequences, some folks that would otherwise commit these crimes don't. That's not control because, as evidenced by those that still choose to rob, rape, kill..., do make that choice and sometimes get away with it.
The idea of a ban on property isn't new. In the past we've banned alcohol, gold (in certain forms), drugs and maybe some other things I can't remember right now. People still had those things but were forced to engage criminal behavior that, of itself, didn't harm anyone. Growing pot in the yard probably hurts nobody. Making your own wine probably hurts nobody. Merely owning a .45, AFAIK, hurts nobody. Banning behaviors has similar results. All that stuff I named in the paragraph above, that stuff still happens.
I believe that at least 2 out of 3 people would be good positive contributors even in a society of anarchy. I don't see man as purely good and benevolent; I accept that maybe a third of the time a third of the not so wholesome third might steal the can of tuna from the Sack o' Duds store but not even a third of a third of a third of a third of a third would shoot the clerk.
Seeking to control folks, in my mind, is a sign of evil. Thanks for your patience to anyone that's taken the time to read this.
