Posted on 11/17/2015 4:11:13 AM PST by marktwain
More modern samizdat art from the new media. This poster succinctly portrays the disarmist strategy of disarmament by a thousand cuts, or incremental confiscation.
The strategy worked in England and Wales (and one could argue, medieval Japan), but it is not working in the United States.
The premise is to make guns costly and difficult or impossible to use without severe legal impediments. This is supposed to lead to reduced levels of gun ownership. When gun ownership drops to the point where it becomes politically ineffective, then wide scale confiscation becomes possible.
Until that point, incremental confiscation is the name of the game. This is done by increasing the classes of people prohibited from owning guns, incrementally increasing the classes of guns that are prohibited (too big or too small, too effective, or not effective enough, or scary looking) for example, and aggressively confiscating guns from people when they or their guns become a member of one of the prohibited classes.
But in the United States, the gun culture has fought back by making guns more utilitarian through concealed carry laws, the castle doctrine, and stand your ground laws. Gun confiscation can only be sold when defense of self and others is de-legitimized. Gun ownership is up, not down, and the total number of guns in the United States is now approaching 400 million, about double from 30 years ago.
At the same time, the murder rate has dropped in half, putting the lie to the central excuse used to market gun prohibition "more guns, more crime". It turns out that guns either have little effect on crime, or "more guns, less crime" is what happens in American culture.
The disarmists are left trying to market blatant lies, such as "there is an epidemic of gun violence" or "semi-automatic assault rifles are the weapon of choice of criminals".
The new media, as exemplified by the poster, means that disarmists no longer have an oligopoly on the dissemination of information. It is why the disarmists are losing.
Definition of disarmist
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
Incremental confiscation is the name of the game. And the disarmists are losing, big time.
All one needed to see was Hillary Saturday night. She made it clear, no one should have a firearm.
When a politician uses the words hunting, sensible regulation and assault rifle in the same paragraph, it is time to lock and load. Or at the minimum, start hoarding and hiding your arms and ammunition.
I’ll guarantee this much, not everybody on the squad that comes to get mine will be happy they tried.
Nobody wants to take your guns.
That’s good cause then no one will get hurt
and die, needlessly.
However, some dogs NEED killing.
They are traitors to their country and their constitution. There is no other word for them and I have no sympathy for them.
The door to “take your guns” was slammed shut at Lexington. It was nailed closed on the road to Concord.
Nobody wants to take your guns??? Well. those who do just don’t understand that nobody will take our guns.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Which part of “cold, dead fingers” don’t they understand?
I have found that a very effective way to fight the gun-grabbers is by THANKING THEM each time the bring up gun control, as it brings more and more people over to our side, and also gets them nowhere. They have no retort.
Pelosi, actually, was the smartest Democrat on this issue in the past generation when she told her 2006 House candidates to promise whatever they wanted on guns to get elected...and then, after the election, they would go back to being Democrats. Nearly worked, but Obamacare was the priority, so we got that instead.
Which drives me nuts when I see FReepers that reflexively quote gun law, as if it takes precedence over the Second Amendment.
This fight will never end until sinful & fallen man is prohibited from ruling over others.
It’s always about control.
Except her personal bodyguards, and the bodyguards of her wealthy friends, of course.
Can Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard carry a gun? Well sure. Just because.
Can the pizza delivery guy can a gun? No. That would be evil.
William Diamonds Drum,
a great Book that described the battle exactly!
The Democrat debate(?), Saturday night was just another demonstration of obfiscation and the dance of superfluous policy .
The only time all three candidates became animated was regarding 'gun control', and all three were talking over each other, so that it became chaotic.
The moderator/ facilitator broke in to state the program had to take an advertizing break- to retake control of the program.
Are they still pointing to Europe as an example of sensible gun laws?
“no one should have a firearm.”
Yeah, that strategy worked out well for those poor folks in Paris. These anti gun nuts need to understand the meaning of the term “soft target”.
They understand it very well. In fact that is what they want us all to be, but for their JBTs. If anyone else comes along and kills a few disarmed and helpless peons, well there are plenty more where they came from.
The founder of HCI, Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, laid out the organ-
ization's strategy on page 53 of the July 26, 1976 New Yorker Magazine:
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is
necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest."
"Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States
-- is going to take time. ... The first problem is to slow down the
increasing number of handguns being produced.... The second problem is
to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the
possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for
the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting
clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.