Why do they hate us so much?

[Minuteman]

OP, I disagree with you. I accept my inferiority and hope they will forever let me grovel from my lowly station. They proudly Rule from their rightful place on high and it's my pleasure to shower them with holy praise...and you should, as well.

This.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Let me try Foxtrapper.

The Frosh & Raskin Infringers grew up talking to, and listening to, the survivors of the horrors of WWII.

Frosh, Raskin and others with their mindset fear the outbreak of factional fighting in society, but they don't want to fight. (Remember, Frosh was a Vietnam Draft Dodger, whose mommy sent him to Sweden to shield him from military service).

They, and others like them, have this Utopian ideal that a strong central government possessing a monopoly on weapons--and a government populated by ALL factions--will head off fighting BETWEEN factions. They fear that that if some factions have firearms and other segments can't own them, or won't own them, it will invariably lead to one-sided slaughter or subjugation.

The Infringers ignore the fact that America has 300 million+ firearms in circulation, but cling to the Utopian Ideal that they can regulate and suffocate gun owners into abandoning all 300 million+ of these weapons. Their mystical goal is to build a monolithic central government--armed to the teeth-- in the misguided belief that disarmed factions will deliver peace and tranquility.

It's the same impulse as the people who want to ban steroids in sports. The people who want to ban steroids are the people who don't want to have to take them to keep up the people who have no qualms about using them. So they demand that a personal choice be banned because it is not THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE. The result: a level playing field by coercion.

The Infringers are cowards who want SOMEONE ELSE to take responsibility--that being an overwhelming government using a monopoly of force--to assure Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness.

Except that's not what our Constitution says. The Utopians will never be at peace, never be brave, and never be armed in order to take personal responsibility, and never be happy.

It's exhausting, but if the Utopians win, we all lose.

 

[Brychan]

Control and dependency, it what keeps them on top of the heap. It not really about guns at all, they just use that as a fear for the masses, so they can say see I'm doing something to keep you safe. You can see it very clearly in the Donna Edwards commercials, where she shows a toddler and talks about gun fire in the middle of the night, then how she is taking on the NRA. As a member of the NRA I must of missed the memo about defending the thugs and criminals right to have guns so they can shoot up the hood.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

I am confused as well. Every Democrat commercial is "I beat the NRA, I am going to outlaw assault weapons, I passed the assault weapons ban" bla bla bla. It would be a loosing argument in 40 plus states, but in Maryland, it's a platform.

 

[Vile Shadow]

My never ending stay-awake-at-night overthinking fest...wondering just WHY Democrats running this state HATE us gun owners so much. Is it 100% political or do they all really deep down inside really just hate us? And why do they hate us? I've read a few pieces written by people who used to be gun haters ( 1 a journalist), and it puts a small insight into it, but it still does not explain people like Frosh and the usual MD circle-jerk. I've taken time to try to understand the anti gun mentality, I wish they would objectively do the same and try to understand us. How can someone like Frosh not understand the fear women have of walking alone in a state park, or anywhere urban/suburban at night? Right to carry is not just "old white men", it's ME and other women too, and a regular melting pot of races and even LGBT people. And the whole Democrat party has become just as guilty as him, at not understanding. They can't all be sociopaths can they?

Why do dogs piss on fire hydrants?

Why do muslims get off on beheadin' people and blowin' thangs up?

Don't know, don't care. They just do.

Political differences alone are and have been more than enough to start wars. Control freaks by their very nature despise those who resist bein' controlled. The gun, especially the "military style assault weapon", represents the tool with which to resist such tyranny.

People like the ravin' nitwit in that FB screenshot you posted would gleefully have anyone who shuns the "helpin' hand" of the "divine beneficent all-provident" gooberment rounded up and exterminated.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

 

[Vile Shadow]

OP, I disagree with you. I accept my inferiority and hope they will forever let me grovel from my lowly station. They proudly Rule from their rightful place on high and it's my pleasure to shower them with holy praise...and you should, as well.

Knock yerself out, but leave us normal folks out of it.

 

[Clovis]

It's not hate...

It's all about the money. And power. If everyone can have a firearm all the time for self defense then the number of police calls would be severely reduced. Then the government would not need as much taxes for the police or prisons or courts or laws or the need for likely thousands of things I can't think of. It would cause a reduction in the level of taxes that would need to be collected as the people would see there was no need and that would reduce the level of money the politicians can spend and soon they would not have the power they believe they should have.

It really is all about the money and how much they can convince you to part with in the name of keeping you safe (they don't want you safe, they want you scared and willing to give them money and power). It really amounts to a legal mugging.

 

[Bikebreath]

Knock yerself out, but leave us normal folks out of it.

If you think I meant that, I accept the F U. But you know it was sarcasm, so cut out the silliness.

We have all told and showed the arrogant "elite" in Annapolis the facts that gun ownership in the rest of the country isn't a problem. That conceal carry isn't a "blood bath". They are (mostly) educated, have some level of intelligence and understanding of the facts we have nearly shoved down their throat. They know other states manage these things, yet they stick to obscure notions that gun-free makes sense.

It can't be for the "good of the children". If it was they can see gun control is as worthless as the drug war...look at the hell in Baltimore.

We are left to decide why such avoidance of the facts is still held by them. We can only pick from the reasons left...

Arrogance: They are better than us

Power: To control is right for them

Hate: They need a boogieman

...and Sling Blade...I love you

 

[Bikebreath]

It's not hate...

It's all about the money. And power. If everyone can have a firearm all the time for self defense then the number of police calls would be severely reduced. Then the government would not need as much taxes for the police or prisons or courts or laws or the need for likely thousands of things I can't think of. It would cause a reduction in the level of taxes that would need to be collected as the people would see there was no need and that would reduce the level of money the politicians can spend and soon they would not have the power they believe they should have.

It really is all about the money and how much they can convince you to part with in the name of keeping you safe (they don't want you safe, they want you scared and willing to give them money and power). It really amounts to a legal mugging.

There are a slew of defense attorney's in the legislature that can profit from this. I've never quite felt they could be this cold, but I may have to rethink this.

 

[Jim12]

There are a slew of defense attorney's in the legislature that can profit from this. I've never quite felt they could be this cold, but I may have to rethink this.

They can. Name a single problem that any of them have actually solved. Not managed, not just made a speech about. Solved.

If politicians were held to the same standards as engineers, builders, and doctors, they'd all be fired and sued for malpractice.

 

[Bikebreath]

They can. Name a single problem that any of them have actually solved. Not managed, not just made a speech about. Solved.

If politicians were held to the same standards as engineers, builders, and doctors, they'd all be fired and sued for malpractice.

Well, they have solved how to bring in Bloomberg money...

 

[TheGunnyRet]

They fear most that which they cannot control.

Spot On... it is the Liberal Progressive Democratic Socialist mantra...

It is apparent in our History...and in the Programs they introduce and feed off of...

If the Democrats (KKK) could during the Civil War Keep Slavery they would...and use Race as a Tool to promote there causes...

They created Social Security/ Welfare...and use it today as a coercion to achieve there goals of control...instead of its actual purpose...

Obama Care is just another step towards control...and of which is failing miserably as Insurance Companies back out of the Health Ins business...

But the Republicans are no better with FOPA...and EPA...

 

[dogbone]

This is one long, long read but one of the best analyses of the Left and gun rights I have ever read. It's an older item but I find myself drawn to reading it again and again.

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

This quote from the article, while longer than most samples usually posted here, is merely a brief excerpt.

Let’s start with this: The citizen’s right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right. The political principle at stake is quite simple: to deny the state the monopoly of armed force. This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: to empower the citizenry, to distribute the power of armed force among the citizenry as a whole. The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear. Instituted in the context of a revolutionary struggle based on the most democratic concepts of its day, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is perhaps the clearest legal/constitutional expression of this principle, and as such, I think, is one of the most radical statutes in the world.

The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state. Denying the importance of, or even refusing to understand, this fundamental point of the Second Amendment right, and sneering at people who do, symptomizes a politics of paternalist statism – not (actually the opposite of) a politics of revolutionary liberation.

I’ll pause right here. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue. To have an honest discussion of what’s at stake when we talk about “gun rights,” “gun control,” etc., everyone has to know, and acknowledge, his/her position on this fundamental political principle. Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right?

If you do, then you are ascribing it a strong positive value, you will be predisposed to favor its extension to all citizens, you will consider whatever “regulations” you think are necessary (because some might be) with the greatest circumspection (because those “regulations” are limitations on a right, and rights, though never as absolute as we may like, are to be cherished), you will never seek, overtly or surreptitiously, to eliminate that right entirely – and your discourse will reflect all of that. If you understand gun ownership as a political right, then, for you, if there weren’t a second amendment, there should be.

If, on the other hand, you do not hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right, if you think it is some kind of luxury or peculiarity or special prerogative, then, of course, you really won’t give a damn about how restricted that non-right is, or whether it is ignored or eliminated altogether. If you reject, or don’t understand, gun ownership as a political right, then you probably think the Second Amendment should never have been.


It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position is that of most self-identified American liberals. However they may occasionally, tactically, craft their discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not. They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above. They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.

 

[iCoder80]

In my opinion, they don't hate us, they hate guns. Many have a seemingly unnatural fear of them.

I've experienced this first hand with my wife. When I first met her some 36 years ago, she was petrified at the mere sight of a gun (of course she has the same fear of motorcycles). Everyone in her family was the same way. She had never actually seen or touched a gun until she saw one of mine. Took a very long time to get her over that fear but now she owns her own handguns and likes going to the range.

Saw the same fear when my son was a Boy Scout. Boys get to pick which merit badges they would like to earn at summer camp. Many would pick shotgun merit badge. Some of their parents would absolutely freak out over the thought of their son handling a shotgun.

Unfortunately it has taken us a lifetime + to reach this point. Will take just as long or longer to make change.

Rural kids learn about guns at home. Urban kids learn about them on the street. I don't know whether it still is but sex and health class used to be mandatory when I was in school. Maybe a firearms safety class should also be required.

 

[Minuteman]

Excellent prose dogbone. I just reread it.

 

[Mark75H]

In my opinion, they don't hate us, they hate guns. Many have a seemingly unnatural fear of them.

I've experienced this first hand with my wife. When I first met her some 36 years ago, she was petrified at the mere sight of a gun (of course she has the same fear of motorcycles). Everyone in her family was the same way. She had never actually seen or touched a gun until she saw one of mine. Took a very long time to get her over that fear but now she owns her own handguns and likes going to the range.

Saw the same fear when my son was a Boy Scout. Boys get to pick which merit badges they would like to earn at summer camp. Many would pick shotgun merit badge. Some of their parents would absolutely freak out over the thought of their son handling a shotgun.

Unfortunately it has taken us a lifetime + to reach this point. Will take just as long or longer to make change.

Rural kids learn about guns at home. Urban kids learn about them on the street. I don't know whether it still is but sex and health class used to be mandatory when I was in school. Maybe a firearms safety class should also be required.

Fear of the unknown is common.

Cities tried to ban firearms and open carry almost at the start of the US, this part is actually NOT NEW. Cities (vs rural) domininating politics one of the themes.

 

[Jim12]

Many are also out of control with their own lives, and think everyone else is, too.

 

[rbird7282]

IMO...

The politicos view it politically, and it's a means of control. Nothing more or less. An armed and/or aware populace is a threat to their power.

The media is used to perpetuate the myth of danger to the sheeple, who have been conditioned to fear over the decades.

Once sheeple are conditioned, the Pols smile.

Problem is...

We're starting to peel back the veil of lies, and that threatens the control factor. Once that falls, the media can't cover it up, and sheeple realize they've been had.

OOPS...

THIS. These lawmakers aren't necessarily afraid of guns, some of them own guns. It is about controlling YOU. Understand that they don't give two sh*ts about whether you or your family live or get beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered. They simply don't care. The sooner voters in this state realize this, the better.

 

[W2D]

THIS. These lawmakers aren't necessarily afraid of guns, some of them own guns. It is about controlling YOU. Understand that they don't give two sh*ts about whether you or your family live or get beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered. They simply don't care. The sooner voters in this state realize this, the better.

Sadly, I'd say the police are in this same bucket. They would prefer that they are the only ones with the guns, so it's easier to identify the bad guys. They just don't realize that WE ARE ON THEIR SIDE, but don't want to wait for them to show up.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Up until about a generation ago, that attitude was only held ( or cynically expressed) by the political animals at the top who owed their alegence to the politicians who appoint them ( and lesser extent the political machines that supported their own election campaigns), while the rank and file and front line supervisors were overwhelmingly pro 2A.

Alas in recent times, the disease spreads downwards. (Various reasons, seperate topic.) Not a total transformation by any means, and probably string regional variations, but what used to be sttong bastion of 2A sentiment has become "m i ced" .