Oh my, that's a steady clear sign, I better obey and do my killing spree elsewhere...
There should be no confusion as to why politicians want to ban
guns and self-defense, it is for the very same reason that you, me, and
everyone else, should always refuse and always be armed and ready to use our
weaponry.
However let’s play with the idea for a moment that government is in earnest and that our politicians actually do want to save lives. Let us say that a total ban may actually have effect and/or that criminals actually do obey the law and will never use guns/weapons during their criminal activities. If so, why would our elected frauds, famous people, and many others within the high-and-mighty sphere, still be protected by armed guards? Why is the White House protected by snipers, missiles and a myriad of armed military? How come that when we watch a EU summit it is like watching a gun show with so many armed guards that you can hardly see which ones are the unelected politicians attending the meeting?
If our magnificent leaders want to disarm the people and keep all normal folk away from guns because they are so dangerous, why are they themselves surrounded by enough firepower to invade a small country?
If guns and too much ammunition are harmful and can lead to serious consequences and innocent lives taken, how come the elitists have so many guns around their children and family?
You may argue that since they are in power their lives are in more jeopardy then normal folk. Perhaps so, but it stands to reason that the argument used to disarm you and me, should apply in either case. If guns are dangerous to have around and if we need to rely on police for protection, why is it different for those in charge? Do not criminals obey the law when it comes to a MP, but do so when it comes to the local shop owner? Is a gun close to your kid more dangerous than when the same gun is close to the president’s kid?
I don´t know about you, but for me, and I am not only taking from an ideological standpoint here, it seems very weird and wrong for a person with 24/7 armed protection with even military around both him/her and his/her family (including the kids) at all times to stand up in front of a camera and say we need to take guns and the right to self-defense away from honest hard working people. Especially when that very same person is waging wars in other countries slaughtering kids and families on a daily basis.
Don´t you think that is kind of… hypocritical? Or what about this guy telling you to be disarmed, but shooting an intruder himself.
Or what about this potential shooting spree that never was. Remind me again, whats the difference between shooting teachers and schoolchildren and shooting at the police again..?
Don´t you get alarm bells going off in your head when you see this lack of consistent reasoning and don´t you feel sort of cheated when blatant hypocrisy is starring at you from behind a teleprompter?
However let’s play with the idea for a moment that government is in earnest and that our politicians actually do want to save lives. Let us say that a total ban may actually have effect and/or that criminals actually do obey the law and will never use guns/weapons during their criminal activities. If so, why would our elected frauds, famous people, and many others within the high-and-mighty sphere, still be protected by armed guards? Why is the White House protected by snipers, missiles and a myriad of armed military? How come that when we watch a EU summit it is like watching a gun show with so many armed guards that you can hardly see which ones are the unelected politicians attending the meeting?
If our magnificent leaders want to disarm the people and keep all normal folk away from guns because they are so dangerous, why are they themselves surrounded by enough firepower to invade a small country?
If guns and too much ammunition are harmful and can lead to serious consequences and innocent lives taken, how come the elitists have so many guns around their children and family?
You may argue that since they are in power their lives are in more jeopardy then normal folk. Perhaps so, but it stands to reason that the argument used to disarm you and me, should apply in either case. If guns are dangerous to have around and if we need to rely on police for protection, why is it different for those in charge? Do not criminals obey the law when it comes to a MP, but do so when it comes to the local shop owner? Is a gun close to your kid more dangerous than when the same gun is close to the president’s kid?
I don´t know about you, but for me, and I am not only taking from an ideological standpoint here, it seems very weird and wrong for a person with 24/7 armed protection with even military around both him/her and his/her family (including the kids) at all times to stand up in front of a camera and say we need to take guns and the right to self-defense away from honest hard working people. Especially when that very same person is waging wars in other countries slaughtering kids and families on a daily basis.
Don´t you think that is kind of… hypocritical? Or what about this guy telling you to be disarmed, but shooting an intruder himself.
Or what about this potential shooting spree that never was. Remind me again, whats the difference between shooting teachers and schoolchildren and shooting at the police again..?
Don´t you get alarm bells going off in your head when you see this lack of consistent reasoning and don´t you feel sort of cheated when blatant hypocrisy is starring at you from behind a teleprompter?
To me, at the very least, they are saying that their armed guards
can handle guns and there is no problem with having assault rifles and machine
guns around kids as long as those are in the hands of hired professionals. In
essence saying that you are not capable of protecting yourself or your kids,
but as long as you have the money to pay for professional help, it’s ok.
Or, to put it even more bluntly, if you are rich it’s okay to have guns around, if you are poor not so much.
So - in best case scenario - those in charge are saying that raped women, robbed store owners, tortured house wives, cut into little pieces victims and anyone caught up in a mad shooting spree shouldn´t be protected because they are not rich and powerful enough.
You see, some really are more equal than others.
Of course our pompous elected frauds are not this good at heart, it’s not so much about keeping the poor down and the rich protected - that would be, as mentioned, the most benign interpretation.
No, instead it’s about protecting their asses and making damn sure that they can get away with anything. An unarmed populace is a controllable populace. Do you really think that all those mass graves from the 20th century would exist if every person on this planet owned guns?
But you don´t have to Godwin yourself or go to extremes.
It’s also about the smaller things, such as the police being able to shoot at people randomly without repercussions, or that the tax collector can safely steal your home, car and possessions without you being able to do something about it. Social services should be able to take your kids away while the bank cuts off your credit and the police shoot your dog and all you should be able to do is stand there with a stupid grin on your face asking “want me to bend over a bit longer?”.
If you have a gun you might actually protect your property, protect your kids and yourself, and surely we cannot have that. That’s your government’s job…
And here´s the next part of this malicious plot; if you are always afraid, and if you are unable to protect yourself and your kids from all the evilness of this world, where are you going to go to get help? To Government!
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, it is all about control. Regardless of what you may think about guns and gun ownership, you need to understand this part. If you want to ban guns at least you should argue in a sincere way and from an honest standpoint.
Or, to put it even more bluntly, if you are rich it’s okay to have guns around, if you are poor not so much.
So - in best case scenario - those in charge are saying that raped women, robbed store owners, tortured house wives, cut into little pieces victims and anyone caught up in a mad shooting spree shouldn´t be protected because they are not rich and powerful enough.
You see, some really are more equal than others.
Of course our pompous elected frauds are not this good at heart, it’s not so much about keeping the poor down and the rich protected - that would be, as mentioned, the most benign interpretation.
No, instead it’s about protecting their asses and making damn sure that they can get away with anything. An unarmed populace is a controllable populace. Do you really think that all those mass graves from the 20th century would exist if every person on this planet owned guns?
But you don´t have to Godwin yourself or go to extremes.
It’s also about the smaller things, such as the police being able to shoot at people randomly without repercussions, or that the tax collector can safely steal your home, car and possessions without you being able to do something about it. Social services should be able to take your kids away while the bank cuts off your credit and the police shoot your dog and all you should be able to do is stand there with a stupid grin on your face asking “want me to bend over a bit longer?”.
If you have a gun you might actually protect your property, protect your kids and yourself, and surely we cannot have that. That’s your government’s job…
And here´s the next part of this malicious plot; if you are always afraid, and if you are unable to protect yourself and your kids from all the evilness of this world, where are you going to go to get help? To Government!
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, it is all about control. Regardless of what you may think about guns and gun ownership, you need to understand this part. If you want to ban guns at least you should argue in a sincere way and from an honest standpoint.
