Intended Result Or Unintended Consequence?

View Latest Activity

Home Forums Rightful Liberty Intended Result Or Unintended Consequence?

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    • #87591

        So I was thinking about the gun control scene, and how every time politicians start pushing their gun ban/confiscation agenda, there’s a spate of panic buying where everyone who currently owns, or ever had *any* idea at all of owning one of the “evil” guns rushes out to max out their credit card on guns, ammo and related gear.
        Considering who is in the running for the election next year, I’m sure we’ll see another buyout on a scale similar to or greater than post-Newtown sooner rather than later.

        Now, take a step back an look at that in the light of the current mentality and politics of the administration; They view any and all gun owners as criminals and terrorists, and they want to get guns out of everyone’s hands, apparently by force if they feel it’s the right move. If you’ve hung around the “tin-foil” hat sites long enough you’ve heard of rehousing/resettlement projects like Agenda 21, there’s probably little doubt they have any qualms about authorizing drone strikes if it was against domestic “terrorists”, and we’ve all heard the occasional statement by some commie or other about how many folks in the country would have to be eliminated to get their way…
        How much of that is true and a a doable possibility, who knows, but it begs this question;

        In light of the fact that Americans are better armed and equipped than pretty much ever in history, has the recent press for more gun control produced its intended result by creating an ever larger criminal/”terrorist” class, creating an ever larger and more effective bogeyman for future politics?
        Or has the push for more control created the unintended consequence of simply arming more and more people who are now to pissed off to just hand them all over?
        At this point, is their constant harping for control, and if need be forced confiscation, just paying lip service to their party’s policy, or have they intentionally created a situation where, if it comes to a fight, it’ll be a more target rich environment?


      • #87592
        Joe (G.W.N.S.)

          It’s difficult to truly get into their minds when trying to determine how much is political pandering vs the the true believers among them.

          I think there is little doubt that they can not force compliance for much of the Socialist agenda as long as a armed population exists.

          The last 8 years pushed far too much change in a short period of time. In my opinion the Socialists really overstepped what had been an effective strategy of slow change.

          The Thread “Interesting Threats and Numbers” demonstrates they lack the numbers to pull off any confiscation attempt. This combined with the noncompliance of NY and CT gun registration schemes and their States LEO’s reluctance to enforce them has also demonstrated a key flaw in these attempts. LEO’s are obviously reluctant to be the pointy end of the Socialist’s spear for a variety of reasons, even in such relatively liberal parts of the country.

          The actual use of Armed Drones in CONUS would cross a line for sufficient numbers of Citizens to make it a “De Facto” declaration of war. So I consider the use of Armed Drones unlikely prior to open conflict.

          A potential problem is that many Socialist’s can not fathom the idea that there are those who would truly risk all for what they believe in, this is something lacking among all but the most hardcore Socialist IMHO. This may lead to the Socialist’s attempting to call our dealt hand in the belief that most are bluffing.

          Intended Result Or Unintended Consequence?

          Probably a little of both!

        • #87593

            As I just commented on Fred’s thread, it is the domestic war that I am primarily concerned about. History is so clear about gun confiscation/control. We are an anomaly as a VERY well armed nation, although as most here would agree not too many actually know what to do with said guns.

            These people are VERY serious about disarming us as that stands in the way of the power that they wish. The VERY REAL efforts to bring in a zillion muslim “refugees” are a part of their strategy. Look at the destruction of Europe. Sweden is the rape capital of the WORLD now…ALL done by young muslim males.

            We are told that white, male, veteran, Christian, gun owning conservative/libertarians are the major terror threat. Major Hassan wasn’t a terrorist, that was “workplace violence.” We all KNOW that white racism is the biggest social problem, even though black-on-white violence DWARFS the opposite.

            We live in backwards-land. Liberty is now bad, so go take your immunizations, eat your GMO, turn in your guns, and get past your homophobia and islamophobia. Embrace world government. Or simply lay down and die, that will please them as well.

            Me…not going to play their game. Sorry. As my late wife used to say, I don’t play well with the other children. I am shifting my life to a rural, self-sufficient model and giving a profound FU to (Y)OUR leaders. Not my leaders, that’s for sure!

            People out there are angry. They are out of work, hurting, and VERY pissed off. I have no idea what is going to be the trigger but there is an earthquake waiting to happen. I will sit on my mountain and watch…and defend…and live my life as I please.

          • #87594

              The last 8 years pushed far too much change in a short period of time. In my opinion the Socialists really overstepped what had been an effective strategy of slow change.

              Exactly- they’ve tipped their hand many times. Which is what has me thinking about this in the light of the current elections- will they install a “safety valve” and let things simmer down for a few years, or figure “cat’s out of the bag now” and continue headlong with as much as they can grab?

              …This may lead to the Socialist’s attempting to call our dealt hand in the belief that most are bluffing.

              That was kind of where I was angling with this thread-they whack the hornets nest to see if anything comes out, they get the intended result they want, and then, as the song says, anything goes….
              I’m not saying immediate full-scale “enemies foreign and domestic #3”, but cause enough ruckus with that as the intended end result.

              OR…realizing the 2A has actually worked in a sort of roundabout way, keep using the *threat* of whacking the hornets nest, which nobody really wants (no matter how they may bluster online), to pass small legislation when possible and generally keep the party happy until they can get their program back on track.

              I mean, this is pure theory discussion, since as you pointed out no-one can read their minds, BUT it is an interesting line of questions to think about.

            • #87595
              Brian from Georgia

                Gary North thinks the left’s typical response is a knee-jerk reaction:

                I think that’s the case for some if not most, but that doesn’t apply to the die-hard disarmers. There are the true believers that mean to go after ownership, as we all know. Look no further than Operation Fast and Furious.

                Still, I think the sales spikes are unintended consequences. What despot would want to have 300 million firearms out there?

              • #87596
                Joe (G.W.N.S.)

                  …generally keep the party happy until they can get their program back on track.

                  By my rough guesstimate it would take at least 10 years for them to lull enough people back to sleep to regain a effective slow strategy and their Socialist base is not going to buy into that.

                  Its a strategic error on their part for buying into their own narrative…

                  I think too many of the Socialists have begun to believe their own propaganda and this is why they have already lost. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean we have won; the possible destruction they may cause, and the real uncertainty that we will be able to pull off an alternative that values Rightful Liberty.

                  Historically our Republic is an anomaly and the possibility of exchanging one tyranny for another is all too real and sadly statistically probable.

                  It is for this reason I have always stressed that our methods must maintain the moral high ground.

                  As difficult as a hypothetical victory by force maybe, it is no where near as difficult as a victory worth passing on to our descendants.

                • #87597
                  Joe (G.W.N.S.)

                    Gary North thinks the left’s typical response is a knee-jerk reaction…

                    Where I would disagree with him is the characterization of simple push back or the enjoyment of making Socialists squirm.

                  • #87598

                      To the OP, I think that their actions are designed to have more than one effect to cover a spectrum of possible responses. In other words, I don’t think it’s a simple, straight-line progression, of cause-effect. I think it’s more like, say 3 possible outcomes, and the move is designed to be used regardless of which reaction may take place.

                      I think they are much more nimble than that. It’s not so simple as a complete pass, or fail. I think they poke the bushes to see what kind of reaction they get, and then move accordingly.

                      I have watched this gun-grabbing strategy play out, since the early 60’s, after Kennedy was assassinated. I think it is a valid conclusion to state, it doesn’t work (for at least their stated purpose), and that everyone knows this, and the libs simply don’t care. It’s their agenda, and must be pushed, regardless of right or wrong. It’s politically correct, which trumps all.

                      As to the concept of unintended consequences of arming more of the population. Well, yeah that’s certainly a fact. Was that an outcome they foresaw? I think so. Again, I think they plan in terms of several possible outcomes. What do they think about it? Dunno, but I’m sure they are thinking of counter-measures, like starving us off, epidemics, etc.

                      I honestly don’t think they care about “small arms proliferation” as it were. Their game is to put the laws on the books, which can then be selectively enforced to punish any individual or group that dares to defy them. They don’t care if you have them squirreled away; they just care if you actually try to do something with them.

                      Do you really think they give a shit about public safety? If that was truly the case, then yeah, they would be horrified by the proliferation of small arms. But they don’t, so they aren’t.

                      Bottom line, they think their disinformation campaign to vilify gun ownership will win the day, when the older generations die off, and the newer ones turn ole granddad’s weapons in for ballgame tickets.

                    • #87599
                    Viewing 8 reply threads
                    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.