About the push for gun control... Where is it really coming from?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I frequently watch Bloomberg because I feel you can learn a great deal about what motivates current events by knowing what the markets are up to. The other day I was listening to a story about Tech CEO's and their pay and benefits. One of the points they kept making was how many of these CEO's are working for as little as a $1.00 a year salary. They do this in exchange for what was described as elaborate benefits.

For example Oracle's Larry Ellison




•Oracle spent $4,642 on legal advice for CEO Larry Ellison to help him figure disclosure requirements tied to his personal political contributions. The software maker also spent nearly $1.5 million for Ellison’s home security services. Ellison has collected more than $1.8 billion in Oracle compensation in the past decade and has a net worth that ranks sixth on Forbes’ list of the world’s wealthiest.


And others as well:



Columbia reported undisclosed security costs for Chairwoman Gert Boyle, 87, after a November burglary and attempted kidnapping at her Oregon home. Discovery spent $40,299 for personal security services for CEO David Zaslav following a September hostage situation at the cable channel operator’s corporate office. Yum Brands said it spent nearly $250,000 last year for CEO David Novak’s personal jet use, noting in its proxy that he had been assaulted while traveling and that his family had received letters and calls from “various special interests, establishing both an invasion of privacy and implicit or explicit threats.”


link

This is where it got interesting and really grabbed my attention. One of the most expensive benefits these CEO's work for and is commonly included in their overall package is personal security. It was stated that security is one of the greatest expenses for these tech companies as well. Now I got to thinking about money, lobbying, and power and it is certainly not a stretch to see where this push for gun control is coming from. The same place I believe CISPA comes from... they need their interests protected and they own us.

Look no further than the likes of Google, Facebook, HP, Twitter, Oracle.... etc.

Then of course there is this, Anonymous Launches Operation Wall Street...Targets CEO's

Really... is this even real? Or is this just something that has been invented to push the agenda?




Anonymous has a new mission: Operation Wall Street. The loosely organized hacktivist collective Thursday declared war -- or at least inconvenience -- on financial services businesses in a call to arms against "the crimes of Goldman Sachs and other firms" for their role in contributing to the mortgage crisis, amongst other alleged misdeeds.


link

So while we all scream at the politicians and what they are up to, ask yourself this. Who is really behind this push for gun control?

Tech makes money, and money creates power, and power and money make the world go round.... OK Computer.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I feel that the OP is onto something.

The private security for CEO's is just the surface.

According to this video
(if I'm listening between the lines correctly)
Security has been shifted to an "enterprise wide" endeavor.

Which means, just like the OP illustrates,
that a CEO's private guards are not paid from the CEO's pocket.

Further,
corporations are now militarizing their security across all levels.





I don't know about you,
but it sounds to me like this guy is saying
military style corporate security may come knocking on your door
if that's where they have to go to protect the companies all-valuable "information."


Mike Grouchy
edit on 10-4-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 

So if I understand what you’re alluding to is - if ‘we the people’ don’t have our guns to protect ourselves - we’ll need to hire someone to do it?

Gated communities are already the thing. Trendy even. So why not your own personal security guard?

???

peace



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Where is it coming from?


Sane & decent people who value humanity and peace in the suburbs?
People who value life over an insane addiction to firearms?
People who cherish their children's futures?

I dunno... seems pretty obvious to me.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


The victims families?
Between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms.
Do you have any idea how many relatives these 47,856 people have?

The Police? Many of them are outgunned as well.

On the "other side" of the gun control measures we have the opposing groups pushing for armament of all citizens and for guns to be freely passed out, without control measures or background checks at all.

I wonder who THOSE people are?
This might help explain:

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1) . Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

For comparison, here are some numbers of other ubiquitous elements of American life:

Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011): 143,839 (source TD LINX/Nielsen via National Associations of Convenience Stores, Association for Convenience for Convenience and Fuel Retailing)
Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)
McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098 (Source: McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report 2011)
abcnews.go.com...
edit on 10-4-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 

So if I understand what you’re alluding to is - if ‘we the people’ don’t have our guns to protect ourselves - we’ll need to hire someone to do it?

Gated communities are already the thing. Trendy even. So why not your own personal security guard?

???

peace



Well this is certainly a possibility. Only the elite will be able to afford this kind of protection and to the rest, well do your best to survive. They want the people disarmed and under constant surveillance so that they can create a "safer" existence for themselves. Who is the "they?" Where is this push coming from? Look no further than the leaders of the technology sector. They are working to revolutionize every sector of the economy.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
from 2006 until today there were X number killed by guns which is a horrible number even though those figures include suicides and death by cop. Still dead is dead and we are correct to assume many of those who died have families.

The problem arises that every year somewhere between 650,000 and 2.5 million firearms are used by those who either stop a crime against the own person or intervene on someones behalf and they have families too. Even though both sides have a well worn argument the gun rights people cling to their interpretation of the second amendment which has been backed up by the Supreme Court and their own experience protecting themselves or hearing stories from friends and families.

Those who hate and scream something must be done are not bad people (unless they are part of some Agenda 21 NWO cabal) and truly feel the world would be a better place without these objects of death and destruction.

I fall on the side that to disarm the population will just allow the bad guys to have guns; but alas I live in a border state so my experiences are different than others. Places like Chicago and other major cities where guns are sorely restricted are living proof that what is being attempted is not working there so a thinking person should consider it will not work in other places as well. I did a thread about the Drug Cartels from Mexico setting up major distribution points here in the good old USA; Chicago and many other cities are key players.

I have friends in Mexico, Doctors and CEOs who go about their lives armed even though many do it illegally simply because of the Mexican laws...50,000 deaths by drug cartels got their attention for they have friends and family too...Same deal in Mexico, the rich have armed details who protect them and everyone else it at the mercy of some bad guys discretion.

There is a way to get rid of the guns in America; it is called a constitutional amendment and until that happens there will be those who basically become outlaws when and if the government arbitrarily makes rules and laws that fly in the face of the Constitution; I don't have the answer and from what I have heard no one else does either if the end result is to stop some nut job from shooting or knifing people in a gun free zone....



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Well considering there has always been a push for gun-control by certain segments, the same as today, how do you explain these actions before the US had a tech revolution?

In 1850 when legislation was being passed to regulate guns how do you explain that one?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 

So if I understand what you’re alluding to is - if ‘we the people’ don’t have our guns to protect ourselves - we’ll need to hire someone to do it?

Gated communities are already the thing. Trendy even. So why not your own personal security guard?

???

peace



I see it as "if (Mr/Ms CEO) pushes for gun control to disarm citizens, then I (Mr/Ms CEO) will be safer".

ie, that is part of their security plan for themselves. To disarm us.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well considering there has always been a push for gun-control by certain segments, the same as today, how do you explain these actions before the US had a tech revolution?

In 1850 when legislation was being passed to regulate guns how do you explain that one?


Sure there have been others who pushed in the past, but it wasn't successful. Now the push has teeth in the form of money and power. They own us.

Do you not see where tech is taking over every single aspect of society? If you don't you really need to build your awareness.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well considering there has always been a push for gun-control by certain segments, the same as today, how do you explain these actions before the US had a tech revolution?

In 1850 when legislation was being passed to regulate guns how do you explain that one?


Sure there have been others who pushed in the past, but it wasn't successful. Now the push has teeth in the form of money and power. They own us.

Do you not see where tech is taking over every single aspect of society? If you don't you really need to build your awareness.


What does technology have to do with a persons motivation to introduce anti-gun legislation. This is nothing more than the democrats responding to the demands of their base after the recent series of shootings. There was an outcry and for political reasons, they had to respond.

If there was some massive undertaking to get our guns then why did the previous assault ban expire with hardly a whisper from anyone in Congress? Where has the major pushes been over the last 15 years or so?

There weren't. Not until these shootings topped the news stories and all the liberals got worked up into a frenzy and demanded something be done. How often did Obama mention gun-control as part of his agenda in his first four years as President?

Its rather obvious what is actually going on. As soon as the next terrible thing happens, people will forget about gun-control for awhile.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I didn't make this news, I'm just sharing it. Obama didn't bring up his REAL agenda (incredibly unpopular with the American public) during his campaign???

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

The "Liberals" are reacting to pressure from somewhere and it is NOT we the people. Sorry, but we don't matter.

You ought to know by now how sold out our representatives are. I was bothered by the question of where this pressure to disarm us was emanating from. It's always about the money and the power. I am convinced now that this is where the primary push is coming from.

As always though, there are useful idiots working to further the cause.

edit on 10-4-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The push for Gun Control is coming from the US State Dept and the UN (see the statue in front of the UN). Read State Dept Publication 7277.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I didn't make this news, I'm just sharing it. Obama didn't bring up his REAL agenda (incredibly unpopular with the American public) during his campaign???

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

The "Liberals" are reacting to pressure from somewhere and it is NOT we the people. Sorry, but we don't matter.

You ought to know by now how sold out our representatives are. I was bothered by the question of where this pressure to disarm us was emanating from. It's always about the money and the power. I am convinced now that this is where the primary push is coming from.

As always though, there are useful idiots working to further the cause.

edit on 10-4-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


Actually he did bring up gun control during his campaign but not while he was President. He seemed to forget about it. That in itself is telling of where his agenda actually is.

He is about wealth-redistribution, not gun-control or gay marriage, he is being forced into positions on these from one source or another but they are not part of his agenda.

And actually the people matter more than anything, it is us who keep the politicians in office, which contrary to your belief, is their top priority. They are not as bought out as you seem to think they are.

I've interned for a few of them and I can tell you from experience, and I know because it was my job, that they react according to whatever is the outcry from their constituents. My glorified job was to track topics of interest from both letters and e'mail, divide them by issue and sort them into positive responses or negative responses.

Depending on the amount of letters, and I can't tell you what the threshold was, but once it hit that it prompted a response from the political office. Once it hit a certain number a flyer went out to supporters, after it hit another number a public statement was made, if it ever hit a certain very high number, only happened once, then legislation either put forth by the individual or a collaborative effort was initiated in Congress.

All to appease the base and help ensure that particular candidate kept his/her base happy and returned to office in the next election.

What proof do you have that they are all bought out?




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The push is coming from those who want more control/power.
Usually those people have tons of money, also.

Why anyone in their sane mind would think the citizens don't need to bear arms...
Beyond rational means of thinking.

For as long as there are people who want to steal, plunder and harm others with arms, there will always be a reason for the people to protect themselves with the same arms.

When people fought with sticks and stones, that was their protection.
Does anyone truly believe those people thought life was better without protection?

As long as their is a need for arms, we the people shall bear them.
If the people allow the idiots who want to "ban" them to succeed, then we deserve the total takeover that would ensue. We deserve whatever happens after we give up our rights.
Rights, morals or dignity.

There had better be some fight left in every American.

If not, then you might as well hand them your life, too.






posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I work on the inside as well. Suffice it to say that I know.

How do you think the public outcries are being influenced these days? Just roll that thought around for a bit.

Who is creating the emotions that bring about the outcry. Think bigger than your own office.

Also spend some time watching Bloomberg and see what is running every single aspect of industry and enterprise. Cost and power is the bottom line and you will be influenced by that.

Sure our legislators want to be reelected, duh. Money, power and influence makes that happen. The public votes but who is influencing the public? See it yet?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The push for Gun Control is coming from the US State Dept and the UN (see the statue in front of the UN). Read State Dept Publication 7277.


And who and what influences them? Money, power... where is it coming from? What sector is taking over every single aspect of industry and enterprise worldwide? Why are fewer humans needed to make money?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I work on the inside as well. Suffice it to say that I know.

How do you think the public outcries are being influenced these days? Just roll that thought around for a bit.

Who is creating the emotions that bring about the outcry. Think bigger than your own office.

Also spend some time watching Bloomberg and see what is running every single aspect of industry and enterprise. Cost and power is the bottom line and you will be influenced by that.

Sure our legislators want to be reelected, duh. Money, power and influence makes that happen. The public votes but who is influencing the public? See it yet?






I understand your train of thought but I disagree with it. I do not believe enough people even partake in the media for it to have that big of an impact, it must be issues that people personally feel connected to. Yes you can have wall to wall coverage of an event in order to try and influence your viewers this way or that but unless it actually appeals to their sense of right and wrong they will simply pass it by.

For instance, you could not instill a fear of bunny rabbits onto the American populace even if you have every media outlet and commentator telling you how evil bunny rabbits are. It will not prompt the people to write their Congressmen to demand change, they simply have no connection to it.

Now to a certain degree you are correct. The vivid images of soldiers being killed in Vietnam certainly played a major role in turning public opinion against the war, the media definitely has a power. However, these protestors were already against the war on a personal level, not all but most, and this was simply the motivation they needed for them to take action.

It did not convince them from being pro-war to being anti-war overnight. The same is true for gun-control. The media may cover these shootings for weeks on end but it is not bringing all that many new people into the anti-gun camp. What it is doing is motivating those that are already anti-gun to become more vocal and demand change, which as we see, the democrats are doing.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Here let me be more direct since you continue to completely miss my point. I'm not talking about the outdated media... Yes they do have influence and play a role HOWEVER, and this is a huge however, I'm talking about technology. I'm talking about social media.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   


Wendy’s Co. (WEN), the second-largest U.S. hamburger chain, paid $657,514 for Chairman Nelson Peltz’s personal security last year. Peltz, the founder and chief executive officer of New York- based Trian Fund Management LP, has received more than $1.7 million from the company in the past three years for security, including guards and equipment, according to Wendy’s proxy statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



This is happening at many public companies and is becoming the norm. Why would he possibly require $657,514 for personal security?


link


These costs are cutting into corporate profits. It's time to squelch the public access to weapons. These crazy Americans are dangerous. Take away their guns!!! Maybe it's not just the tech guys, but they are certainly doing everything they can to influence the public via social media.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join