So the CSGV lockout is stirring up some interesting blog posts. I direct you to Sean.
In their quote above, CSGV gives away their game. CSGV isn’t interested in guns and gun ownership per se, they are concerned with the idea that people like us might tell people like them to leave us alone, and we might use our guns to enforce that demand. CSGV’s leadership wants to remake the US into a
Communist Socialist DemocratProgressive country. They fear that we may not be interested in theirCommunist Socialist DemocratProgressive message, and we might even shoot at them when they come and demand that we get onboard. We’ve all been told by wild eyed gun rights fanatics that gun control is just one of the steps in imposing Communism. We all laughed and ignored that warning. Now read that CSGV quote again. Not so silly anymore, is it?
According to Sean’s reading CSGV strikes him as more of a left-wing progressive/socialist group that’s using gun control as a means to an end. (A little like how I discovered that GOA is simply a Republican front group using Gun control for political leverage.)
But in no way are ANY gun control advocates interested in stopping at banning guns. Just look at the UK. They have no gun rights, knife bans, no search and seizure rights, and they are under constant government surveillance. They live in a Police State.
Now it might be considered controversial to call the UK a Police state (but only if you don’t think about it) but let’s look at honest-to-god Police States, like the USSR. Now in the USSR they had all the stupid UK anti-freedom laws, plus you could be tossed in jail for speaking out against the Communist party.
Let’s look at China. I could write 1,000 words, but the adage is true!
We all know the story here. You can even watch videos on it on youtube. But in all the videos and news stories the best name for this world renown figure is “Tank Man”. Why? Nobody knows his name, and most likely he was imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Also for such a huge demonstration what was accomplished by the Tiananmen Square protest? NOTHING.
Why, because when the government has the monopoly on force human rights do NOT exist unless they are GRANTED by the government.
Gandhi was a prime example of an exception that proves the rule. What stopped the British government from tossing Mr. Gandhi into a prison for 70 years, or shooting him in the head?
Answer: The British stopped that from happening. He lived to see free India because they LET him live. It was their mercy. Most military dictatorships are not so compassionate.
I’ll end with a quote from Robb:
It’s cliché but it’s true; It’s not about guns, it’s about control. And the progressive mindset seeks to enslave you to an all powerful state, for your own good as you are too stupid to do it yourself. It is rather difficult to corral people into the boxcars though when they can shoot your ass.
As soon as we cede our rights to keep and bear arms, there is NOTHING to stop us from losing our other rights.
The UK is what you might call a “soft” police state, but it’s still a police state.
a fair observation.
“Gandhi was a prime example of an exception that proves the rule.”
Not exactly. Yes the British were civilized and merciful. But the British were also completely aware that if Gandhi died and/or was replaced by a more militant leader, then the protests could become violent, and the mobs really could prevail against them through sheer force of numbers.
I am hardly an expect on the man. I’ve read a few books that had side chapters on him, and I saw the movie, and I have close friends who were in India at the time tell me their thoughts on him, but I know almost NOTHING on the British standpoint.
I think we can both agree that Gandhi lived because he was ALLOWED to live. The Brits totally wanted to wipe out George Washington and the other Patriot leaders, as well as the Continental Congress. Those men died in their beds because they didn’t let the British to kill them on the battlefield.
That’s a HUGE distinction.
The unmasking of these clowns is painful. They depend upon our unwillingness to believe in their true intentions. They depend upon the fact that any time a person starts going on and on about the “Communists!” it’s the speaker that’s crazy, not the communists. They want to be in charge. You can’t rule independent people. So they start by enforcing dependency.
i wish that merely keeping our gun rights would be enough to guarantee our other rights. sadly, that has proven not to be the case.
That is true, we are incrementally losing our rights (which does mean its possible to gain them back the same way) Big sweeping destruction of rights (see Creation of Soviet Empire, or the Third Reich, or the crushing of the uprising in China, or Burma) can ONLY be done by a government monopoly of force.
But you are 100% correct, just because we have guns does NOT mean we can sit back and just wait for the enemy to crash through the gate. But its one thing to have.