“We just want to be safe.”
“You are not as trained or experienced as the police.”
“You could try to overthrow the government.”
“I’m the only one…”
“You don’t have permission.”
“Not on my turf.”
“Jesus wouldn’t shoot someone.”
“I don’t want a fair fight.”
“It could never happen here.”
What do these phrases all have in common? They’re all phrases that are used to disarm the lawful citizen. Gun Control shows up under a LOT of faces with various motives and only one end goal: The disarmament of everybody but those THEY choose. Sometimes they choose themselves. Sometimes they choose somebody “trusted”. No, you’re right. Not trusted by everybody, trusted by THEM.
When speaking of the First Amendment, it is often said that it is not there to protect that speech which we agree with, but to protect that which we do not agree with or find offensive. I frequently make the same comparison with the Second Amendment, but it goes even deeper than that. When somebody says “Nobody NEEDS guns that can spray 33 bullets without reloading,” they are expressing dismay at that which offends them. The difference between them and us is that we are of the mindset to not try to strip THEIR offensive rights.
Every disarming idea they have is selfish, whether their intent is the same or not, it’s selfish.
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for the other nine amendments.
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.
Hitler is the obvious example of an Authoritarian. Granted, most of his confiscation started with the Weimar Republic. In modern times, we have former Chicago mayor Dick Daley. While under the guise of public safety (backup link here), he’s done everything possible to not allow guns in Chicago until McDonald v Chicago forced his hand. The dead giveaway for The Authoritarian status of Dick Daley is how he demands the ENTIRE populous be disarmed… except his own bodyguards. The telling quote is here: “My family comes first,” which is Daley speak for “I come first.” He demanded safety for his own family, but denied safety for every family in Chicago.
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, it would seem that even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.
The examples here are too numerous to mention, but I will give one link. JayG’s Dead Goblin Count. A nice round 255 as of this writing!
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric”enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.
We call this type of person The Hoplophobe (which is not an actual word, we just like it). The very definition of this is Joan Peterson. I will not link to her. She doesn’t deserve the traffic. Because THEY are afraid of an inanimate object, they want NOBODY to possess them.
The Ideological Chameleon
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.
The most common name you will find these individuals under are “Fudds”. Named after Elmer Fudd, they’re the hunters that always start their arguments with “I’m a gun owner, but…” See the part above about how they don’t understand the social ramifications of their actions? Perfect example: “First they came…”
The Security Monopolist
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.
The closest I can think of for this type of person is your average militarized police force. Let’s use Jose Guerena for an example. If you want the high profile weaponry that costs gazillions of dollars… then you need to JUSTIFY it! If they cannot justify their jobs, then they run the risk of losing their jobs and their paycheck.
The Dysfunctionally Unworldly
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.
This group has your average Soccer Moms in the ‘burbs and the Occupy protestors that only know the world from their parents’ basement. The same group that says their Liberal Arts degrees should be 6 figure salary jobs are the same people that say “Tyranny can’t happen here. You’re just paranoid.”
Gun control has but one goal: disarm the citizenry. There is no middle ground. They don’t want a piece of your cake. They want the whole thing.
Whether your reasoning is the self-protection of your family, the prevention of tyranny, or just because you want to; you have a protected right in this country. “If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Apparently knowing *IS* half the battle.
Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link back to the original page on JPFO is included.