Remember one absolute fact about gun grabbers.

There is one absolute fact about gun grabbing politicians like Bloomberg that you musts keep in mind. Those gun grabbing politicians INTEND TO KEEP their guns.

That should be warning enough to all Americans.

Look what happened to the people of Russia, Germany, and China. How did that work out for the people in those countries in the 20th Century???

 

Nobody is taking my gun from me, I can tell you that

 

That is historically true. The concept of gun confiscation is the foundation of gun control in general, and the reasons why no amount of control is enough to satisfy them.
Yes, guns are used for self-defense. They are used for sports. They are used for target shooting.
But the fundamental reason the constitution specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Is to preserve the freedom of the nation.
The founders were well aware of the need to be forever vigilant and ready to defend freedom, and that the risk to our freedom was perhaps more likely to come from within than from foreign sources.
The constitution requires that an oath be sworn by those holding many offices, of course including all congress. It is also required of soldiers, federal office holders and a great many positions- and in taking it you pledge:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion....

It INCLUDES domestic enemies of our constitution. Those who would "infringe" on the rights it grants would qualify.

 

The fanatics who demand unbridled permissiveness will eventually have to defer to the vast majority of Americans who support sensible measures to reduce the inordinate level of gun carnage. Neither the gun-dependent nor the gun-phobic will ever get everything they want, but progress can and will be made. The democratic will shall prevail.

Some are eager to surrender to this, but most are not:

​

 

Ye Gods and little fishes but us Aussies must disappoint the crap out of the hoplophiles

Here you are, been predicting the mass slaughter of Aussies by their government since 1996 and we just haven’t had the decency to get around to doing that yet

In fact all that happened was the rate of mass shootings plummeted and the murder rate went down as did the suicide rate

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

How DARE those Aussies defy the belief that guns = freedom!

 

There are many absolute facts about these people - yours is just one.

 

The statistic that they use to defend gun control's effectiveness in Australia is actually misconstrued. It counted mass shootings. One, mass shootings were going down before the ban, and when the ban happened, it went down at the same rate it had been. Two, it defines a mass shooting as a public shooting with a certain body count, including the shooter. A lot of shootings after the ban had one or two less than what was required to be chalked up a s amass shooting, so the numbers are pretty askew. I'm not going to jump on a conspiracy that these numbers were deliberately created to spin a false narrative, but I would say that it seems like it was too convenient. Still a stretch, but worth the thought.

Furthermore, other rights have been stripped away since the ban little by little since the gun ban. Now free speech has been compromised in Australia, and with the culture shift, it's only getting worse. They don't need to take your guns and go to full blown tyranny all at once. They can just condition people into thinking tyranny is a good thing by societal changes.

 

Why haven’t the govts of countries like Australia, UK or Japan mass slaughtered its citizens in the 20th? Isn’t that what is supposed to happen? Govts automatically go around killing off its citizens in countries with gun control, right???

 

I don't think many argued that was going to happen right away. More of a soft strawman. Rights from countries with gun control have been waning greatly. There are many other issues as well. The UK has Muslim rape gangs going around, and the police know about it, but won't do anything because they're afraid of being called Islamophobic. The police are not defending their citizens. If people had guns, they can overthrow the government to get new people in that WILL defend their rights. However, the fact that they could do that would likely get the government to take their job a little more seriously. Gun control advocates only seem to look at the cases where gun confiscation didn't result in totalitarian rule, ignoring the cases where it did. This is a trick colloquially known as cherry picking. A recent case of gun control backfiring horribly Venezuela. Tyrants trying to take over the country may or may not have been the goal, but what matters is that they had the potential to do it because they had a monopoly on guns.

 

Wrong!!!

 

2/3 of U.S. gun deaths are suicide. Japan has very strict gun laws yet has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Go figure.

 

Right away? All of those countries have had gun control for quite some time now. So again I’ll ask, since you didn’t actually answer the question, why haven’t the govts of Australia, UK and Japan mass slaughtered its citizens?

 

That is not what I was saying at all. What I was saying was you were using the soft strawman that the government was going to go on a rampage killing its citizens immediately after they disarmed it's citizens. A soft strawman is a term I use for addressing arguments from groups to people, as opposed to an individual. It basically means that it's a point that someone, somewhere, might have made, but it's either not the mainstream argument or not what the particular person is arguing. Your argument oversimplifies what people typically claim to one that is easier to combat. Giving the government the power to become tyrants if they so choose is still a bad idea. Sometimes they devolve into tyranny immediately, sometimes it takes a while, but when the government has a monopoly on guns, resistance is made far more difficult. You also ignored the other part of my comment that pointed out your cherry picking. Or you could call it survivor bias. Doesn't matter.

 

Too many gun owners will defend their constitutional right to own. We will always own our guns. Plus, Trump is on our side.

 

Incorrect. The OP was trying to make that argument by pointing out Russia, Germany and China.
So again I''l ask...why haven’t the govts of Australia, UK and Japan mass slaughtered its citizens?

 

As well we should. I just don't like the weak-ass argument that some put forth that the govt is going to kill its citizens if there is total gun control.

 

Simple, they haven't got uppity yet. When they do, you'll have a whole heap of corpses for your soapbox...

 

Ooooooh...so govts only go around killing uppity folk. Got it....

 

They don't want to disarm everyone. They just want to disarm people who can't afford professional armed bodyguards. Gun control is just equality for the rich and political elite. Its progressive.

 

The context in which you are asking this question is framed illogically, but I will answer further regardless. Well, there are many possible answers to that question. I don't know what goes on in the minds of corrupt people, but one possibility is conditioning. Instead of taking away people's rights all at once, it is beneficial for tyrants to change societal norms to get people into the authoritarian way of thinking. Regardless, you have to consider the fact that even if the government is completely filled with pure and good people now, it can be taken over by people that would misuse that power later. If there was a way you could reliably trust a person to never abuse power, I would just be a monarchist, but there isn't. Now, let me ask YOU a question. In the event of a tyrannical government, how do the people go about overthrowing them? Gun control advocates never want to answer this. They really have to, because every dictatorship that has ever risen to power has done so by disarming the populace. If we don't have some sort of check to keep the government from doing whatever they want, then we're just going on the blind faith that they won't ever become tyrannical.

 

An armed people will never submit to fascist domination.

"The essence of fascism is totalitarianism and a useful definition of totalitarianism might be the following: all aspects of human life are subject to the intervention of the state which reserves the right to provide final judgments, both value judgments and practical judgments, and all the various areas of human expression. No aspect of human behavior is immune to the ultimate definition and control of the state. Mussolini's famous slogan is in order here: Everything for the state, nothing against the state, no one outside the state.'"
S. J. Woolf Editor, "The Nature of Fascism," Random House NY 1968p. 11.

 

When it comes to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing Big Bad Government is the heavy weight champ.

 

Seeing how government is by far the biggest contributor to murders worldwide, I say the burden of proof that banning our methods of keeping them in check won't lead to another disaster lies on the anti-gun side. Incidentally, all these people saying that my president is an evil racist, ironically, are saying that we need to give him all of our guns. I don't believe the claims regarding Donald Trump's alleged "bigotry". But let's say, theoretically, that everything the left has said about him is true. If he was some evil tyrant, and he tried to rally people up to commit genocide or something, I would surely want the populace to be well armed so that he could be stopped.

 

I don't think they really need to prove anything. Americans arent going to disarm. Period. Such rights are simply not subject to majority opinion or even law. If they succeed in making peaceful/defensive firearm ownership illegal, they'll just delegitimize the percieved authority of the law, and instead of having 10s of million of law abiding citizens to forecefully disarm, they'll instead just still have 10s of millions of 'criminals' to forcefully disarm. Such a situation is not meaningfully different than declaring a civil war.

The real bottom line is that politicians advocating for UK/Aus style gun control and such are naught but cult leaders offering the impossible to naive followers to gain a political advantage. They might as well be campaigning on 'Unicorns for All.'

Gun control doesn't fail in the US because of a lack of proof or the Constitution or the NRA, it fails because too many Americans value their right to defense.

 

The slaughtering comes after the people no longer have any money to be taxed away to fund wasteful government programs.