It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama is NOT coming for your guns.

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
OK. I hope this is the right place for this thread. I chose to open a thread instead of contributing to an existing one because I honestly couldn't find a recent thread that seemed appropriate.

So. If you read the title to this thread, you might be thinking I'm going to be another one of those people who will tell you that "gun control" efforts are nothing to worry about or that you're just being paranoid if you think Obama or the political left or whomever is "coming for your guns".

Well, no. I'm not one of those guys. But I decided to post this because I keep seeing those people who say that gun bans can't/won't happen because they're not happening immediately right in front of our eyes.

So, no. Obama is not coming for your guns. The left is not coming for your guns. Not right away. What they ARE doing is what they do best. They call themselves "Progressives" and that's exactly what they are. They do not do things all at once. When they decide to do something big, they do it in baby steps and they let inertia carry them from one step to the next, so as to make the transitions as seamless (not jolting or alarming) as possible.

It really is the boiling frog technique. But I think most people make the mistake of taking that a little bit too literally. For example, if you believe that you grasp this concept and it's meaning, you still might make the mistake of expecting the whole thing to happen faster than it actually will. Or you might expect that since you're savvy to it, it will be way more obvious what is happening at a given time than it actually will be.

But you see. People who are good at planning big social engineering projects don't plan for "the main event" to be obvious. When it comes to something like the gun agenda, the ultimate goal is to have public support for the Second Amendment just gradually peter out. Because you see, they don't have to force it. If public support for gun rights dwindles down to nothing (over the long run) they still win and they didn't have to do anything as drastic as banning anything all at once.

I started thinking about this because we (in the "conspiracy community") have a bad habit of having a very common human flaw. We have a (relatively) short attention span. We're constantly looking for conspiracies everywhere and always getting distracted by big, noisy events and wondering what they mean (or don't) and how they may or may not fit into the grand plan (if you're the type who is given to believing there's a grand scheme of things in every big conspiracy). Generally, we get concerned about things like gun control when it looks like someone is making a big move or when some major event happens that is bad news for gun rights. But as soon as this "crisis" passes (and it always does) and nothing of any consequence really happens, we kind of just tune out again and go back to whatever we were doing. We stop thinking about it, basically. Until next time.

And isn't that exactly how psychological conditioning works? Gradual acclimation. It's "the boy who cried wolf". Eventually, people get tired of these little microshocks that don't add up to anything. They get tired of always being worried about something that seems to never happen. And eventually, they're convinced that it's all BS and they were all worried over nothing all along.

If you're 50 years old and you've been a gun owner all your life and nothing has really changed except that you might have to show the man selling the gun proof that you're not an escaped convict or a convicted murderer, you're going to be able to tell yourself that gun control actually is what they say it is. It IS reasonable. They're just being careful. They just don't want guns to "fall into the wrong hands". Which all obviously does seem perfectly reasonable to any sane person. And that's when they have you. You must be crazy if you think crazy people have a right to guns.

I'll have to conclude this by pointing out that I'm not even a gun owner. I don't even have one gun. I don't even like guns. Well, I will say I'm ambivalent on them. To me, a gun is just another machine. I have no real love or real hatred for them.

But I started thinking about this because I was listening to a guy talk and I know from listening to him talk over time that this guy loves guns and owns a lot of guns. And that guy is a liberal (believe it or not). He is one of those people who picks and chooses. He thinks that he can own 50 guns and vote for liberals and socialists and it will never come back on him. I wondered why he thinks this way but he answered my question without my having to ask. The reason he believes his gun rights are safe is that people have been saying the left wants to ban guns for ages and it hasn't happened yet. Yes. That's really the reason this smart guy (and he IS a smart guy) believes there's nothing to worry about. Because it hasn't happened and he believes that things that have not happened yet will never happen. That worries me. It doesn't worry me so much when people who don't care about other people's rights say it. It worries me when it's someone I know is an intelligent person who should care about their own rights and they just casually brush it off and say "Oh, those people are just paranoid. Obama is obviously not coming for my guns! That's nonsense!"

When and if you loose your rights, it will be guys like that who really have betrayed you. If you're paying attention, you know there is an agenda. Against gun rights and many other rights as well. But it will be those people who won't face reality until they have to. Like I said. This guy probably owns 50 guns (I don't know him personally but he says he's a big fan of guns). This is the kind of guy who thinks he'll be OK because he can (for now) pass the background check or the psych evaluation or whatever might be involved in stricter gun laws. This guy is selfish. As long as it isn't HIS right to own a gun, he'll support the politicians who are going after everyone else's rights. And by the time he realizes that his vote will eventually have consequences for him, it will be too late.

This is a guy who votes for liberals (and socialists) because he agrees with them on a lot of other things. He's a nerd type of guy who basically worships science. I find it ironic that someone who is that sharp on so many things can be so dumb as to believe the left will not turn on him when they don't need him anymore.
edit on 4-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Gun laws are like the bathroom laws that many on the right want.

Both target innocent groups and both ignore the fact that there are already laws in place to punish people who commit crimes.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
*Yawn* Well why don't you get back to us when it actually starts happening.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
People have been saying that Obama is coming for their guns for years. Still hasn't happened.
What people like Obama would like to see would be fewer lunatics getting hold of guns and blowing holes in schoolchildren/teachers/people who look at them funny. Gun owner checks in other words. How many mass shootings have there been this year alone? How much blood on the floor again? Some 'agenda'.


+3 more 
posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
*Yawn* Well why don't you get back to us when it actually starts happening.


If there ever comes a time where the 2nd Amendment is gone, the 1st Amendment will have ceased to exist.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
People have been saying that Obama is coming for their guns for years. Still hasn't happened.
What people like Obama would like to see would be fewer lunatics getting hold of guns and blowing holes in schoolchildren/teachers/people who look at them funny. Gun owner checks in other words. How many mass shootings have there been this year alone? How much blood on the floor again? Some 'agenda'.


Wow. I can see I wasted a lot of words on you. It's OK though because the post really wasn't written to convince you of anything. I've seen you around and I know you disagree with me. I don't care. This thread was made for the people who actually do care about their rights.
edit on 4-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Your right, Obama isn't, Hillary is.......Chelsea Clinton " my mom will end the 2nd amendment when she gets elected"



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
What if I had my guns at a golf course? I mean there is opportunity potential there.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
What if I had my guns at a golf course? I mean there is opportunity potential there.


Only on holes with a par 4 or better.

Then it's justified.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And when will anti gun activists realize, Criminals Do Not Obey The Law? How is that not obvious? Do you somehow think that one more law will be that magic one that stops insane people doing insane things?
There are laws against selling guns to certain people. There are laws against murder, assault, etc...Still doesn't stop it though does it?
Criminals will not give up their guns, no matter what law is written. Why should I give up mine?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

While it is true that gun control efforts are in progressive stages, this is only true in times like now of relative "peace". Another major "event" and they very well can, or will try, to push it through much faster. And we are long overdue for another big event/attack.


iTruthSeeker



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MEDIKATED
Your right, Obama isn't, Hillary is.......Chelsea Clinton " my mom will end the 2nd amendment when she gets elected"


Well, it's like this....

Let's say you have two groups of people.

1. In group number one, you have 5 people who believe they have rights.

2. In group number two, you have a million people who believe those 5 people have rights but their rights are not important enough to care about when they have a good excuse not to.

Hillary Clinton is one person. One person is never going to take your rights away without help. Which is why I say that you will not know your rights are gone until you realize you're one of the few who cares about them. You'll never have to worry about any right that everybody cares about. Your right to pay taxes, for example, is completely safe.

Hell, even your right to vote is completely safe. You can rest assured that you will ALWAYS have the right to check a box indicating which one of the same people you will vote for. That keeps it all together. We have a choice. We can vote for Hillary Clinton or we can vote for Hillary Clinton wearing a Donald Trump mask. Or we can vote for Hillary and Donald wearing a Bernie mask. LOL

At any rate, this is a right everyone believes in. The right to delude yourself into believing you have a choice. And that right is sacred and safe and you'll never have to explain to anyone why it's there.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Gun laws are like the bathroom laws that many on the right want.

Both target innocent groups and both ignore the fact that there are already laws in place to punish people who commit crimes.



Off topic but I just wanted to give you props on all the very astute posts I see from you, constantly pointing out hypocrisy on "both sides of the aisle" and/or drawing a direct line to where the "left" and the "right" share a common ground.

It's so refreshing to see these kinds of posts from you, like a lonely island in a sea of divisiveness.

Keep it up, please. The world needs more unity and the common sense to rally around that unity.




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
There are numerous examples of this progressive approach to prevent damage to the target. I can think of two off the top of my head, firing pottery and scuba diving.

If anyone here has ever made pottery, it is a good analogy of what the OP is stating. When firing raw pottery, you must raise the temperature slowly, over a long period of time. Why? Because, if the temp rises too fast, the molecular water molecules int he clay body will not have a chance to evaporate safely and will expand quickly and turn to steam. If that happens, the pottery piece will literally explode from within....BOOOM! So, you raise the temp very slowly, so that the pieces have a chance to adapt and adjust to the temperature increase without exploding.

If anyone knows anything about scuba diving, you will now what "the bends" are. When you dive to depth, you are breathing compressed air. That compressed air has nitrogen in it (as does air at sea level). As you begin to surface, the dissolved air in your blood will begin to expand. The oxygen will easily leave your system as you exhale and from your body. However, the nitrogen does not leave as easily or as quickly. Surface too quickly and that dissolved nitrogen in your blood and tissue will expand rapidly, causing the bends at best, and literally exploding you from within at worst. Then, you are dead.

This is the same process and reason the OP explains above. It is a proven technique to slowly institute change over a long period of time without destroying the fabric of the host. The "gun control" movement has (and is) using this same tactic to the eventual goal of full gun bans. If you doubt that, please read or listen to Senator Dianne Feinstein talk about it. This is a U.S. Senator!!

Poo-poo it all you like. But this slow and progressive trend is there. And will continue unabated unless challenged at every step of the way. If they are successful in this course of action, then their next target might just be a protected Constitutional right you believe in. Then you will see it for what it truly is....but too late.


edit on 6/4/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I agree with the overall premise of your post.

It IS already happening. The government currently disarms and disenfranchises people daily, a large majority of those people being minorities.

Is it a coincidence that we have so many people being stuffed into jails for absurdly long sentences for nonviolent offenses (marijuana perhaps?), being branded as felons for life in most places? Is it a coincidence that this occurs to people the government deems "criminal" when it just so happens these people lose some of their most integral rights along with their conviction?

I don't think so. And we should probably wise up to it before any number of us become part of the criminal class and have our rights stripped, at the behest of beauracrats and lawmakers imposing arbitrary punishment against those they find deserving of it.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure, I can see where there may be new laws to further restrict the use of guns, or certain types of guns. But, to ban all guns will require a major change to the constitution. That isn't going to happen without everyone knowing about it. It isn't going to happen, period.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you'd agree that we only have a right to bear arms that the government approves of.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I agree with you 100%. Obama TRIED to take our guns, but he failed. I don't even know how or why Diane Feinstein is still alive, but you better believe she has a plan if Hillary takes office to castrate Americans of their 2nd amendment. And then we can kiss free speech goodbye like half of Europe and now Australia who also banned guns, and subsequently made expression and certain words criminal acts arrestable offense with jail time.

I think Diane Feinstein baths in the blood of children from the missing kids posters to keep her vampire powers of immortality. We just lost Mohammad Ali, can she please go next??? Maybe California can have more of their rights back and have a counter defense to all the gangs who are armed with superior firepower.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
So if Bruce Jenner can be considered a women while still having a penis,
Can I be considered unarmed while still having my gun?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you'd agree that we only have a right to bear arms that the government approves of.


Well I don't think people should be able to have weapons of mass destruction, for obvious reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join