Michael Moore Calls for Full Repeal of Second Amendment -- 'You Don’t Need a Gun'

submitted by StillLessons from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Entirely predictable, and the perfect example of the extreme blindness prevalent among too many on the left regarding the meaning of an armed citizenry.

He's still talking about guns for hunting and target shooting as though that's the reason guns are selling out around the country. I am baffled as to how people like Moore cannot see obvious political violence - from both sides, though more broadly and frequently from the left in recent years - and realize that people see the writing on the wall.

I'll make it simple for you, Mike: the people are demanding guns to defend themselves against their political opponents, who are making it quite clear they find the gun-owners' presence on the planet unacceptable. This is self-defense, not only against street-level crime, but against political violence. You're telling people to disarm?! Seriously? When the government has declared half the population "deplorable"? What world do you look out and see?

A thought exercise for you, Mike: imagine your scrapping of 2A goes through. Then another Trump is elected, only not friendly and cuddly as Trump was, but serious about it. This new "Trump" is actually committed to wiping the left off the map, and he's willing and able (not stymied politically like Trump I) to use the force of the US government to do it. How are you going to stop him?

Political violence swings both ways. It is entirely ambidextrous. You are essentially telling people to trust the government to defend them. Seriously? Your naivete about the trustworthiness of government needs to have a serious meeting with the history of governments abusing their populations throughout history. The first step is ALWAYS to disarm the population.

Yes, there is a cost to having an armed population. We are paying that cost. It is not pretty, and I am in favor of all methods we can come up with to stop insanely unhappy people from killing large numbers of their co-habitants here on Earth. Giving sole power over lethal firearms to the organizations on Earth consistently responsible for the greatest loss of life (warfare and domestic repression) is a monumentally stupid reaction to a very serious problem. You are working to empower an aspect of human behavior (governmental authority) which is head-and-shoulders more lethal than any other we know - to replace the empowerment the populist aspect of human nature, which has a significantly lower death count. Orders of magnitude less. It's not zero. The shootings we see are tragic. Nobody disagrees with this. But your solution is like trading in the painful rock in your shoe for the boulder which will crush the life out of you.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I believe - either if enough guns are lying around for civilians or not - this still stays more a problem of culture, ideology or milieu though. Even-though i follow your ideas with the stone in the shoe.

In Switzerland and Canada (afaik) are lying just about as many guns around per citizen as in US. But they don't clock the murder rate US does. Baltimore seems to be a real black murder-hole e.g. in this aspect. Possibly the most "extreme" example in the "western" world that is not a Banana republic (social-"progress"-wise regarded) as Brazil e.g. is.

[–]StillLessons[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree. This is where real solutions would lie, looking into what is different in those countries versus in the US. The answer - as you imply, though don't state - is social cohesion. The reason people are snapping and going on shooting sprees is not because of the weaponry to which they have access, but because our media and government class (the same people) have used every opportunity to set groups against each other (black/white, jabbed/unjabbed, pro-war/anti-war, urban/rural, etc, etc, etc). There have been zero attempts I have seen in the dominant media or political discourse over the past decade for competing groups to get together and negotiate. Negotiation is now seen as "capitulation" and is automatically ruled out. Well, take that political strategy and translate it into the broader population through the cultural organs (as they very much have done), and you end up with insanely angry individuals.

This is the problem when a governing class believes themselves morally superior to those "below" them. They have entirely forgotten about representation. It's a pipe-dream now. Yet they are surprised when people who no longer have any way to be represented in their perspective lose their shit. The grand poobahs like to treat all these issues separately - each in its own little box - but when they treat half their population like serfs, there is a connection when that half of the population generates unstable souls with an inability to process the truth of their rage.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Concise and sound.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As the social cohesion of Canada has deteriorated over the last 20 years, so has the violent crime rate increased, directly corroborating your point on this matter.

If you will allow me to bid up the cynicysm, I would like to state my view that this divisive stance of the media and political class is precisely and purposely done in order to maximize violence, so as to justify eventually banning guns, therefore allowing the upcoming worldwide totalitarian communist regime to take hold everywhere including the USA.

The longer a 2A repeal is resisted, the more violent crime will increase, and the longer it will take for the commie dictators to achieve their wet dream of absolute worldwide totalitarianism.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most European countries have a total ban on guns. In Greece, gangs of "immigrants" or gypsies attack people on a daily basis and often kill them as well. They don't appear to have a problem acquiring guns and they don't appear to have a problem doing some time in prison. My point is that the murder rate doesn't appear to be lower than the US one.

[–]SychoShine509 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So who then is willing to keep guns available but take away at least all the surplus military ones from the cops and saving that money to put into instruments of peace instead? You in favor of that option? Taking the claws out of the beast.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, Moore knows. He understands fully what his "opinion" being accepted leads to. He is just "in" with the people who would benefit the most, and so he wants his kick-back, commission, or whatever you want to call it.