Sneaky Gun Control Tactics (an Article review)
By:  William P. Flinn, May - 2008

If you knew you couldn’t outright take something away from people, then how do you go about using other measures to effectively “ban” that thing by making it useless?  Well… you would simply make that thing unusable then, right?  You would pretend to support people’s rights by telling them that you wouldn’t ban something, and instead use sneaky tactics behind the scenes to effectively do the same thing that your intended ban would do.  Those who seek to take control of the White House aren't stupid.  They know exactly how to sneak their agendas through because they know that the sheeple are gullible and will be willing recipients of their tactics.  So – let’s take a look at how this is done...

The article “We're All Gun Nuts Now: The Democrats sidle up to the Second Amendment.”  By John McCormack, which appears in the May 19, 2008 edition of The Weekly Standard, discusses how the presidential candidates answered (or more to the point sidestepped) questions about their support for gun control.   They pleaded ignorance to briefs presented in the Washington D.C. versus Heller case, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and even outright denied participation in previous gun control polls and discussions. Then later they began to emerge with statements about how they:

“will not take away a law abiding citizen’s right to hunt target shoot (and later adding) defend their families…”

 Basically, what this article points out is the obvious and well known notion that politicians will sidestep the issues while they are campaigning, then turn the tables and do whatever they darn well please once they are elected.  They make statements about their support for the 2^nd Amendment by saying things like:

“I support the 2^nd Amendment, BUT…”  or “I believe in ‘common sense’ and ‘reasonable’ gun laws…” 

What they really mean is that they have a gun control agenda that they want to push through.  They know that they can’t do it overtly, so they disguise it so as to be palatable or even a different thing altogether to try to fool even the reasonable gun owner.  The rest of the brainwashed sheeple won’t care what it is that the politicians are trying to do – they are too lazy or stupid to do research, or they just plain don’t care about their rights being taken away one by one.  Many of the people who fall into that category anyway (sheeple, I mean) prefer to live in a “nanny state” where the government takes care of all their needs.  These types of laws, to them, are just additional assurance that the government is “looking out for them and doing what’s best for them.”

This whole situation is nothing more than what is commonly referred to as the FUD tactic:  Spreading Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt in order to sway people’s decisions through misinformation or deliberately omitting important information.  If people are made to be oblivious or even fearful of things, even though the fears are completely unfounded, then they can be duped into being swept along in the tide of other unreasonable and fearful people to institute something that makes no sense whatsoever.  But since they didn’t take the time to get all the facts, they have just ignorantly been convinced to make an unsound decision.  And if some politician can promise to solve these fears and uncertainties, then the masses will blindly vote them into power. 

 As an aside: Yes – I just said “vote them into power” not “…office.”  Politicians crave power – they have no intention of being voted into “office.”  To be voted into “office” would mean that they are acknowledging that they are the servants to the people, as they were meant to be.  They seem to forget the principles on which this country was founded.  I seem to remember something about the “…consent of the governed…” being mentioned in our country’s founding documents, but I don’t see too many of these politicians caring about that anymore.

But I think the FUD tactics of the ambitious politician are even more devious than that. Now that they know that an outright ban on firearms will not be supported, even by some of their own people (other politicians), they will resort instead to pushing forward with their version of "reasonable" controls and "common sense" gun laws.  If they can’t ban something outright, they can surely regulate it to the extent that having it is useless.   As an example, they will push forward with mandates for such things as requirements for expensive training, licensing, registration, ammunition stamping, ballistic fingerprinting and the like. Their outward message is:

"These are 'common sense' and 'reasonable' controls that will protect you and keep you safe."  

 The underlying, and actual theme of these controls are that they want to make firearm ownership and use so exorbitantly expensive that people will either lose interest altogether, or simply not be able to afford to maintain what they have (“I have a gun but now can't afford bullets”).

And what good is that right to bear firearms without bullets?  That is like telling us that we can enjoy our 1^st amendment rights, as long as we don’t use keyboards or Internet blogs to do so.  What good is a right to bear firearms if I have to jump through so many hoops to register one that it takes a long time and a lot of money before I can have one?  Last I checked, basic human rights were not supposed to have these types of conditions.  And that is exactly what the liberal politicians are counting on to slip their horrid agendas through.  They can then honestly make the claim:  “We did NOT infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.”  They just made it impossible for us to use them.

In my opinion, what this does is effectively takes away firearm ownership from the lower income populations - the folks who probably need self defense measures the most, and makes it more difficult for even middle-class Americans to keep up with the costs of firearm ownership and use. The majority of people in these classes are easy to target because these same politicians come off with high emotions and promises of government benefits and programs to help them live better lives. The folks in lower or even moderate income families then have little to no other choice but to vote for these people because these are the politicians who give them the greatest chance of economic survival.

These promises greatly overshadow the politician’s lack of support and even downright hatred of even basic human rights.  It is, after all, easier to control your citizens when they are unarmed.  Basic human rights are supposed to be enjoyed by everyone, not just those who can afford them.  Basic human rights are supposed to know no discrimination.  But the elitist liberals want to be able to control who can do what, and they rely on a large population of dependant subjects in order to be able to exert power.

Sneaky tactics, FUD, and lying to the public are the tools of the politician to make people afraid of guns and to fool them into believing that more gun laws will keep them safe.  Instead of focusing on ways to get the criminals off the streets, they are seeking to take away a basic human right from the law abiding of this country by taking away their tools of defense.  What’s next – heavily regulate or ban pepper spray?  Well, they’re trying to regulate that too, but that is the topic of another article.

It is obvious who is going to probably end up with the Democratic nomination. In my opinion, Barrack Obama is one such politician who favors and employs these types of sneaky tactics and FUD to put gun ownership out of the reach of most Americans, while making the statement “I support your 2nd amendment right to bear arms." and crossing his fingers behind his back.  He can say that all day long, while pushing and backing laws that will make our rights essentially worthless.

 

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle.”

- Richard Henry Lee